
Glass " BTS \U 

Book ^l 



/ 3 P06& 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES: 



OK, A VIEW OP THE 



EVIDENCES, DOCTEINES, MORALS, AND INSTITUTIONS 



OF 



CHRISTIANITY, 



BY RICHARD WATSON. 



A NEW EDITION, CAREFULLY REVISED; 

WITH 

A COMPLETE INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL TEXTS, AN INDEX OF GREEK TERMS, AND A 
COPIOUS ANALYTICAL INDEX, 



BY THOMAS 0. SUMMERS 



lasjiuUU, €nn.: 
PUBLISHED BY E. STEVENSON & F. A. OWEN, AGENTS, 



FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 

1857. 



V 









I 



> . . . 



STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY A. A. STITT, 
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHYILLE, TENN. 



EDITORIAL NOTE. 



The editor of this edition of Watson's Institutes does not consider 
it necessary to say any thing in recommendation of this great work, its 
character as a theological text-book of the highest grade having long 
since been established. 

Of the present edition it may not be improper to state that it has 
been brought out with the greatest possible care. 

Numerous errors, found in previous editions, have been corrected in 
this : the quotations from Scripture have been verified and corrected, 
at the cost of no small labor, as Mr. Watson appears to have quoted 
from memory, rarely noting the place, and frequently failing to give 
the ipsissima verba — a matter sometimes of considerable consequence 
to the argument. 

The breathings and accents of Greek words, omitted in previous 
editions, have been supplied in this. 

One or two incongruous sentences which escaped the notice of the 
author have been, with due advisement, eliminated ; and an occasional 
note, the reasons of which will be obvious to the student, has been 
inserted. 

Every Scripture quotation is referred to in the Index of Scripture 
Texts ; and every paragraph of the work has been carefully analyzed 
and noted in the Analytical Index, which will be found exceedingly 
serviceable, not only in directing to any passage which may be sought 
for in the book, but also in its review, or in the examination of 
students. 

This edition is brought out in one volume, for the convenience of 
those for whom it has been specially prepared. The type, though not 
very large, is clear and legible, being leaded, in double columns. 

QTIjc QEbttor. 
Nashville, Tenn., October 11, 1856. 



AUTHOR'S ADVERTISEMENT 



The object of this work is to exhibit the Evidences, Doctrines, 
Morals, and Institutions of Christianity, in a form adapted to the use 
of young ministers, and students in Divinity, It is hoped also that it 
may supply the desideratum of a Body of Divinity adapted to the 
present state of theological literature — neither Calvinistic on the one 
hand, nor Pelagian on the other. 

The reader will perceive that the object has been to follow a course 
of plain and close argument on the various subjects discussed, without 
any attempt at embellishment of style, and without adding practical 
uses and reflections, which, however important, did not fall within the 
plan of this publication. The various controversies on fundamental 
and important points have been introduced ; but it has been the sincere 
aim of the Author to discuss every subject with fairness and candor, 
and honestly, but in the spirit of " the truth" — which he more anx- 
iously wishes to be taught than to teach — to exhibit what he believes 
to be the sense of the Holy Scriptures, to whose authority, he trusts, 
he has unreservedly subjected all his own opinions. 

London, March 26, 1823. 



CONTENTS. 



Editorial Note iii 

Author's Advertisement v 






PART FIRST. 

EVIDENCES OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

Chapter I. — Man a moral agent 9 

II. — The rule which determines the quality of moral actions must be presumed to be 

matter of revelation from God 11 

III. — Further presumption of a direct revelation from the weakness and corruption 

of human reason, and the want of authority in merely human opinions 14 

TV. — Further proofs of the weakness and uncertainty of human reason 16 

V. — The origin of those truths which are found in the writings and religious systems 

of the heathen 19 

VI. — The necessity of revelation — State of religious knowledge among the heathen.. 30 

VII. — The necessity of revelation — State of morals among the heathen 35 

VIII. — The necessity of revelation — Religions of the heathen 38 

IX. — The evidences necessary to authenticate a revelation — External evidence 44 

X. — The evidences necessary to authenticate a revelation — Internal evidence — Col- 
lateral evidence ». 54 

XI. — The use and limitation of reason in religion 57 

XII. — Antiquity of the Scriptures 63 

XIII. — The uncorrupted preservation of the books of Scripture 78 

XIV. — The credibility of the testimony of the sacred writers 82 

XV. — The miracles of Scripture t 85 

XVI. — Objections to the proof from miracles considered 90 

XVII. — Prophecies of Scripture 101 

XVIII. — Objections to the evidence from prophecy considered Ill 

XIX. — Internal evidence of the truth of Scripture — Collateral evidence 117 

XX. — Miscellaneous objections answered 135 



PART SECOND. 

DOCTRINES OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

Chapter I. — The existence of God 150 

II. — Attributes of God — Unity, spirituality 191 

III. — Attributes of God — Eternity, omnipotence, ubiquity 200 

IV. — Attributes of God — Omniscience 210 

V. — Attributes of God — Immutability, wisdom 226 

VI.— Attributes of God— Goodness 282 



VUl 



CONTENTS, 



Chap. VII. —Attributes of God— Holiness 247 

VIII.— God.— The trinity in unity 253 

IX. — Trinity — Scripture testimony 263 

X. — Trinity — Preexistence of Christ 268 

XI. — Trinity — Jesus Christ the Jehovah of the Old Testament 274 

XII.— The titles of Christ , 285 

XIII. — Christ possessed of Divine attributes , 325 

XIV. — The acts ascribed to Christ proofs of his Divinity 330 

XV. — Divine worship paid to Christ 335 

XVI. — Humanity of Christ — Hypostatic union — Errors as to the person of Christ 346 

XVII.— The personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost 353 

XVIII. — Fall of man — Doctrine of original sin 361 

XIX. — Kedemption — Principles of God's moral government 408 

XX. — Redemption — Death of Christ propitiatory 416 

XXL — Redemption — Sacrifices of the law 442 

XXII. — Redemption — Primitive sacrifices 455 

XXIII. — Benefits derived to man from the atonement — Justification 475 

XXIV. — Benefits derived to man from the atonement — Concomitants of justification 509 

XXV. — Extent of the atonement 519 

XXVI. — The same subject continued 531 

XXVII. — An examination of certain passages of Scripture, supposed to limit the extent 

of Christ's redemption 562 

XXVIII.— Theories which limit the extent of the death of Christ , 572 

XXIX.— Redemption— Further benefits 611 



PART THIRD. 

THE MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

Chapter I. — The moral law 622 

IL— The duties we owe to God 629 

III. — The duties we owe to God — the Lord's day 644 

IV. — Morals — duties to our neighbor 653 



PART FOURTH. 

THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



Chapter I. — The Christian Church 680 

II. — Institutions of Christianity — The sacraments.... 699 

III. — The institutions of the Church — Baptism 703 

IV. — The institutions of the Church— The Lord's Supper.. 729 

Index of Scripture Texts.- 737 

Index of Greek Terms 744 

Analytical Index 745 



PART FIRST. 

EVIDENCES OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE 
HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



CHAPTER I. 

MAN A MORAL AGENT. 

The theological system of the Holy Scriptures 
being the subject of our inquiries, it is essential 
to our undertaking to establish their Divine au- 
thority. But before the direct evidence which the 
case admits is adduced, our attention may be 
profitably engaged by several considerations, 
which afford, presumptive evidence in favor of the 
revelations of the Old and New Testaments. 
These are of so much weight that they ought 
not, in fairness, to be overlooked ; nor can their 
force be easily resisted by the impartial in- 
quirer. 

The moral agency of man is a principle on 
which much depends in such an investigation; 
and, from its bearing upon the question at issue, 
requires our first notice. 

He is a moral agent who is capable of perform- 
ing moral actions; and an action is rendered 
moral by two circumstances, — that it is voluntary, 
and that it has respect to some rule which de- 
termines it to be good or evil. " Moral good and 
evil," says Locke, "is the conformity or disa- 
greement of our voluntary actions to some law, 
whereby good or evil is drawn upon us from the 
will or power of the law-maker." 

The terms found in all languages, and the 
laws which have been enacted in all states with 
accompanying penalties, as well as the praise or 
dispraise which men in all ages have expressed 
respecting the conduct of each other, sufficiently 
Show, that man has always been considered as an 
agent actually performing, or capable of per- 
forming moral actions, for as such he has been 
treated. No one ever thought of making laws 
to regulate the conduct of the inferior animals, 
or of holding them up to public censure or ap- 
probation. 

The rules by which the moral quality of actions 
has been determined are, however, not those only 
which have been embodied in the legislation of 



civil communities. Many actions would be judged 
good or evil, were all civil codes abolished; 
and others are daily condemned or approved in 
the judgment of mankind, which are not of a 
kind to be recognized by public laws. Of the 
moral nature of human actions there must have 
been a perception in the minds of men previous 
to the enactment of laws. Upon this common 
''perception all law is founded, and claims the 
consent and support of society, for in all human 
legislative codes there is an express or tacit 
appeal to principles previously acknowledged, as 
reasons for their enactment. 

This distinction in the moral quality of actions 
previous to the establishment of civil regulations, 
and independent of them, may in part be traced 
to its having been observed that certain actions 
are injurious to society, and that to abstain from 
them is essential to its well-being. Murder and 
theft may be given as instances. It has also 
been perceived that such actions result from 
certain affections of the mind ; and the indul- 
gence or restraint of such affections has therefore 
been also regarded as a moral act. Anger, re- 
venge, and cupidity, have been deemed evils, as 
the sources of injuries of various kinds ; and 
humanity, self-government, and integrity, have 
been ranked among the virtues ; and thus both 
certain actions, and the principles from which 
they spring, have, from their effect upon society, 
been determined to be good or evil. 

But it has likewise been observed by every 
man, that individual happiness, as truly as social 
order and interests, is materially affected by 
particular acts, and by those feelings of the heart 
which give rise to them ; as, for instance, by 
anger, malice, envy, impatience, cupidity, etc.; 
and that whatever civilized men in all places and 
in all ages have agreed to call viok, is inimical 
to health of body, or to peace of mind, or to both. 
This, it is true, has had little influence upon 
human conduct ; but it, has boon acknowledged 
by tho poets, sages, and satirists of all countries, 
and is adverted to as matter of universal expo- 

(») 



10 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



rience. While therefore there is in the moral 
condition and habits of man something which 
propels him to vice, uncorrected by the mise- 
ries which it never fails to inflict, there is also 
something in the constitution of the human soul 
which renders vice subversive of its happiness, 
and something in the established law and nature 
of things which renders vice incompatible with 
the collective interests of men in the social state. 

Let that then be granted by the Theist which 
he cannot consistently deny, the existence of a 
Supreme Creator, of infinite power, wisdom, 
goodness, and justice, who has both made men 
and continues to govern them ; and the strongest 
presumption is afforded by the very constitution 
of the nature of man, and the relations esta- 
blished among human affairs — which with so much 
constancy dissociate happiness from vicious pas- 
sions, health from intemperance, the peace, 
security, and improvement of society from vio- 
lence and injustice — that the course of action 
which best secures human happiness has the 
sanction of His will, or, in other words, that He, 
by these circumstances, has given his authority 
in favor of the practice of virtue, and opposed it 
to the practice of vice. 1 

But though that perception of the difference 
of moral actions which is antecedent to human 
laws must have been strongly confirmed by 
these facts of experience, and by such observa- 
tions, we have no reason to conclude that those 
rules by which the moral quality of actions has, 
in all ages, been determined, were formed solely 
from a course of observation on their tendency 
to promote or obstruct human happiness; be- 
cause we cannot collect either from history or 
tradition that the world was ever without such 
rules, though they were often warped and cor- 
rupted. The evidence of both, on the con- 
trary, shows, that so far from these rules having 
originated from observing what was injurious 
and what beneficial to mankind, there has been, 
among almost all nations, a constant reference 
to a declared will of the Supreme God, or of sup- 
posed deities, as the rule which determines the 
good or the evil of the conduct of men ; which 
will was considered by them as a law, prescrib- 



1 "As the manifold appearances of design and of final 
causes, in the constitution of the world, prove it to be the 
work of an intelligent mind, so the particular final causes 
of pleasure and pain, distributed among his creatures, 
prove that they are under his government — what may be 
called his natural government of creatures endued "with 
sense and reason. This, however, implies somewhat more 
than seems usually attended to when we speak of God's 
natural government of the world. It implies government 
Of the very same kind with that which a master exercises 
over his servants, or a civil magistrate over his subjects." — 
Bishop Butler. 



ing the one and restraining the other, under the 
sanction, not only of our being left to the 
natural injurious consequences of vicious habit 
and practice in the present life, or of continuing 
to enjoy the benefits of obedience in personal 
and social happiness here, but of positive re- 
ward and positive punishment in a future life. 

Whoever speculated on the subject of morals 
and moral obligation in any age, was previously 
furnished with these general notions and dis- 
tinctions. They were in the world before him ; 
and if all tradition be not a fable, if the testi- 
mony of all antiquity, whether found in poets or 
historians, be not delusive, they were in the 
world in those early periods when the great body 
of the human race remained near the original seat 
of the parent families of all the modern and now 
widely extended nations of the earth; and in 
those early periods they were not regarded as 
distinctions of mere human opinion and consent, 
but were invested with a Divine authority. 

We have then before us two presumptions, 
each of great weight. First, that those actions 
which among men have almost universally been 
judged good, have the implied sanction of the 
will of our wise and good Creator, being found in 
experience, and by the constitution of our nature 
and of human society, most conducive to human 
happiness. And, Second, that they were origin- 
ally in some mode or other prescribed and 
enjoined as his law, and their contraries pro- 
hibited. 

If therefore there is presumptive evidence of 
only ordinary strength, that the rule by which 
our actions are determined to be good or evil is 
primarily a law of the Creator, we are all deeply 
interested in ascertaining where that law exists 
in its clearest manifestation. For ignorance 
of the law, in whole or in part, will be no 
excuse for disobedience, if we have the oppor- 
tunity of acquainting ourselves with it ; and an 
accurate acquaintance with the rule may assist 
our practice in cases of which human laws take 
no cognizance, and which the wilfully corrupted 
general judgment of mankind may have dark- 
ened. And should it appear either that in many 
things we have offended more deeply than we 
suspect, whether wilfully or from an evitable 
ignorance ; or that, from some common accident 
which has befallen our nature, we have lost the 
power of entire obedience without the use of 
new and extraordinary means, the knowledge of 
the rule is of the utmost consequence to us, be- 
cause by it we may be enabled to ascertain the 
precise relation in which we stand to God our 
Maker : the dangers we have incurred ; and the 
means of escape, if any have been placed within 
our reach. 



CH. 



n.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



11 



CHAPTER II. 

THE BULE WHICH DETERMINES THE QUALITY OF 
MORAL ACTIONS MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE 
MATTER OF REVELATION FROM GOD. 

It is well observed by a judicious writer, that 
"all the distinctions of good and evil refer to 
some principle above ourselves ; for, were there 
no Supreme Governor and Judge to reward and 
punish, the very notions of good and evil would 
vanish away : they could not exist in the minds 
of men, if there were not a Supreme Director to 
give laws for the measure thereof." — Ellis's 
Knowledge of Divine Things, etc. 

If we deny the existence of a Divine law obli- 
gatory upon man, we must deny that the world 
is under Divine government, for government 
without rule or law is a solecism ; and to deny 
the Divine government, would leave it impos- 
sible for us to account for that peculiar nature 
which has been given to man, and those relations 
among human concerns and interests to which 
we have adverted, and which are so powerfully 
affected by our conduct: certain actions and 
habits which almost all mankind have agreed to 
call good, being connected with the happiness 
of the individual, and the well-being of society ; 
and so on the contrary. This too has been 
matter of uniform and constant experience from 
the earliest ages, and warrants therefore the 
conclusion, that the effect arises from original 
principles and a constitution of things which the 
Creator has established. Nor can any reason be 
offered why such a nature should be given to 
man, and such a law impressed on the circum- 
stances and beings with which he is surrounded, 
except that both had an intended relation to 
certain courses of action as the sources of order 
and happiness, as truly as there was an intended 
relation between the light and the eye which is 
formed to receive its rays. 

But as man is not carried to this course of 
action by physical impulse or necessity; as 
moral conduct supposes choice and therefore in- 
struction, and the persuasion of motives arising 
out of it : the benevolent intention of the Cre- 
ator as to our happiness could not be accom- 
plished without instruction, warning, reward, and 
punishment: all of which necessarily imply 
superintendence and control, or, in other words, 
a moral government. The creation therefore of 
a being of such a nature as man, implies Divine 
government, and that government a Divine law. 

Such a law must be the subject of revelation. 
Law is the will of a superior powor ; but the will 
of a superior visible power cannot be known 



without some indication by words or signs — in 
other terms, without a revelation; and much 
less the will of an invisible power, of an order 
superior to our own, and confessedly mysterious 
in his mode of existence, and the attributes of 
his nature. 

Again, the will of a superior is not in justice 
binding until, in some mode, it is sufficiently 
declared ; and the presumption, therefore, that 
God wills the practice of any particular course 
of action, on the part of his creatures, esta- 
blishes the further presumption, that of that will 
there has been a manifestation; and the more 
so if there is reason to suppose that any penalty 
of a serious nature has been attached to dis- 
obedience. 

The revelation of this will or law of God may 
be made either by action, from which it is to be 
inferred; or by direct communication in lan- 
guage. Any indication of the moral perfections 
of God, or of his design in forming moral beings, 
which the visible creation presents to the mind ; 
or any instance of his favor or displeasure 
toward his creatures clearly and frequently con- 
nected in his administration with any particular 
course of conduct, may be considered as a revela- 
tion of his will by action ; and is not at all incon- 
sistent with a further revelation by the direct 
means of language. 

The Theist admits that a revelation of the will 
of God has been made by significant actions, 
from which the duty of creatures is to be inferred, 
and contends that this is sufficient. " They who 
never heard of any external revelation, yet if 
they knew from the nature of things what is fit 
for them to do, they know all that God will or 
can require of them." 1 

They who believe that the Holy Scriptures 
contain a revelation of God's will, do not deny 
that indications of his will have been made by 
action ; but they contend that they are in them- 
selves imperfect and insufficient, and that they 
were not designed to supersede a direct revela- 
tion. They hold, also, that a direct communica- 
tion of the Divine will was made to the progenitors 
of the human race, which received additions at 
subsequent periods, and that the whole was at 
length embodied in the book called, by way of 
eminence, "The Bible." 

The question immediately before us is, on 
which side there is the strongest presumption 



* Cliristianity as Old as the. Creation, p. '2;'.;'!.—" By em- 
ploying our reason to collect tho will of God from the fuml 
of our nature, physical and moral, we may acquire not only 
a particular knowledge of those laws which are dednciHo 
from them, but a general knowledge of the manner in 
Which God is pleased to exercise his supreme powers in this 
system."— Bolinqbroke's Works, vol. v. p. 100. 



12 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



of truth. Are there, in the natural works of 
God, or in his manner of governing the world, 
such indications of the will of God concerning 
us, as can afford sufficient direction in forming a 
perfectly virtuous character, and sufficient infor- 
mation as to the means by which it is to be 
effected? We may try this question by a few 
obvious instances. 

The Theist will himself acknowledge, that 
temperance, justice, and benevolence are essential 
to moral virtue. With respect to the first, 
nothing appears in the constitution of nature, or 
in the proceedings of the Divine administration, 
to indicate it to be the will of God that the 
appetites of the body should be restrained within 
the rules of sobriety, except that, by a con- 
nection which has been established by him, the 
excessive indulgence of those appetites Usually 
impairs health. If therefore we suppose this to 
amount to a tacit prohibition of excess, it still 
leaves those free from the rule whose firm con- 
stitutions do not suffer from intemperate grati- 
fications : it gives one rule for the man of vigor- 
ous, and another for the man of feeble health ; 
and it is no guard against that occasional in- 
sobriety which may be indulged in without 
obvious danger to health, but which neverthe- 
less may be excessive in degree though occasional 
in recurrence. The rule is therefore imperfect. 

Nor are the obligations of justice in this way 
indicated with adequate clearness. Acts of in- 
justice are not, like acts of excessive intempe- 
rance, punishable in the ordinary course of 
providence by pain and disease and premature 
death, as their natural general consequences ; 
nor, in most instances, by any other marked 
infliction of the Divine displeasure in the present 
life. From their injurious effects upon society 
at large, indications of the will of God respect- 
ing them may doubtless be inferred, but such 
effects arise out of the grosser acts of fraud and 
rapine : those only affect the movements of 
society, (which goes on without being visibly dis- 
turbed by the violations of the nicer distinctions 
of equity which form an essential part of virtue, ) 
and never fail to degrade and corrupt individual 
character. Rules of justice, therefore, thus in- 
dicated, would, like those of temperance, be very 
imperfect. 

The third branch of virtue is benevolence, the 
disposition and the habit of doing good to others. 
But in what manner except by revelation are 
the extent and the obligation of this virtue to 
be explained? If it be said that "the good- 
ness of God himself as manifested in creation and 
providence presents so striking an example of 
beneficence to his creatures, that his will, as to 
the cultivation of this virtue, may be unequivo- 



[PART I. 

cally inferred from it," we cannot but perceive 
that this example itself is imperfect, unless other 
parts of the Divine conduct be explained to us, 
as the Scriptures explain them. For if we have 
manifestations of his goodness, we see also 
fearful proofs of his severity. Such are the per- 
mission of pestilence, earthquakes, inundations ; 
and the infliction of pain and death upon all 
men, even upon infants and unsinning animals. 
If the will of God in favor of beneficent actions 
is to be inferred from the pleasure which is 
afforded to those who perform them, it is only 
indicated to those to whom a beneficent act 
gives pleasure, and its non-performance pain ; 
and it cannot therefore be at all apprehended by 
those who by constitution are obdurate, or by 
habit selfish. The rule would therefore be un- 
certain and dark, and entirely silent as to the 
extent to which beneficence is to be carried, and 
whether there may not be exceptions to its exer- 
cise as to individuals, such as enemies, vicious per ■- 
sons, and strangers. 

Whatever general indications there may be in 
the acts of God, in the constitution of human 
nature, or in the relations of society, that some 
actions are according to the will of God, and 
therefore good, and that others are opposed to 
his will, and therefore evil : it follows then, that 
they form a rule too vague in itself, and too liable 
to different interpretations, to place the conduct 
of men under adequate regulation, even in 
respect of temperance, justice, and beneficence. 
But if these and other virtues, in their nicest 
shades, were indicated by the types of nature, 
and the manifestations of the will of God in his 
moral government, these types and this moral 
government are either entirely silent, or speak 
equivocally as to subjects of vital importance to 
the right conduct and effectual moral control, as 
well as to the hopes and the happiness of man. 

There is no indication, for instance, in either 
nature or providence, that it is the will of God 
that his creatures should worship him ; and the 
moral effects of adoration, homage, and praise, 
on this system, would be lost. There is no indi- 
cation that God will be approached in prayer, 
and this hope and solace of man is unprovided 
for. Nor is there a sufficient indication of a 
future state of rewards and punishments ; because 
there is no indubitable declaration of man's 
immortality, nor any facts and principles so 
obvious as to enable us confidently to infer it. 
All observation lies directly against the doctrine 
of the immortality of man. He dies, and the 
probabilities of a future life which have been 
established upon the unequal distribution of 
rewards and punishments in this life, and the 
capacities of the human soul, are a presumptive 



€H. n.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



13 



evidence which has been adduced, as we shall 
afterwards show, only by those to whom the doc- 
trine had been transmitted by tradition, and who 
were therefore in possession of the idea; and, 
even then, to have any effectual force of persua- 
sion, they must be built upon antecedent princi- 
ples furnished only by the revelations contained 
in Holy Scripture. Hence, some of the wisest 
heathens, who were not wholly unaided in their 
speculations on these subjects by the reflected 
light of those revelations, confessed themselves 
unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion. 
The doubts of Socrates, who expressed himself 
the most hopefully of any on the subject of a 
future life, are well known; and Cicero, who 
occasionally expatiates with so much eloquence 
on this topic, shows by the skeptical expressions 
which he throws in, that his belief was by no 
means confirmed. 1 If, therefore, without any 
help from direct or traditional instruction, we 
could go as far as they, it is plain that our reli- 
gious system would be deficient in all those 
motives to virtue which arise from the doctrines 
of man's accountability and a future life, and in 
that moral control which such doctrines exert : 
the necessity of which for the moral government 
of the world is sufficiently proved by the wick- 
edness which prevails even where these doctrines 
are fully taught. 

Still further, there is nothing in those mani- 
festations of God and of his will, which the most 
attentive contemplatist can be supposed to collect 
from his natural works and from his sovereign 
rule, to afford the hope of pardon to any one 
who is conscious of having offended him, or any 
assurance of felicity in a future state, should 
one exist. 

Some consciousness of offence is felt by every 
man ; and though he should not know the precise 
nature or extent of the penalty attached to 
transgression, he has no reason to conclude that 
he is under a mild and fondly merciful govern- 
ment, and that therefore his offences will in 
course be forgiven. All observation and experi- 
ence lie against this ; and the case is the more 
alarming to a considerate mind, that so little of 
the sad inference that the human race is under a 
rigorous administration depends upon reasoning 
and opinion: it is fact of common and daily 
observation. The minds of men are in general a 
prey to discontent and care, and are agitated by 



1 So in his Tusc. Quest. 1, ho says : "Expone igilur, nisi 
moleslum est, primum animos, sipotes, remanerc post mortem ; 
turn si minus id obtinebis, (est cnim arduum,) doccbis carere 
omni mala mortem. Show me first, if you can, and if it bo 
not too troublesome, that souls remain af tor death; or, if 
you cannot prove that, (for it is diflicult,) declare how thoro 
is no evil iu death." 



various evil passions. The race itself is doomed 
to wasting labors of the body or the mind, in 
order to obtain subsistence. Their employments 
are for the most part low and grovelling, in com- 
parison of the capacity of the soul for intel- 
lectual pleasure and attainments. The mental 
powers, though distributed with great equality 
among the various classes of men, are only in 
the case of a few individuals ever awakened. 
The pleasures most strenuously sought are there- 
fore sensual, degrading, and transient. Life 
itself, too, is precarious : infants suffer and die, 
youth is blighted, and thus by far the greater 
part of mankind is swept away before the prime 
of life is attained. Casualties, plagues, famines, 
floods, and war, carry on the work of destruc- 
tion. In the majority of states the poor are 
oppressed, the rich are insecure, private wrong 
is added to public oppression, widows are 
wronged, orphans are deprived of bread, and 
the sick and aged are neglected. The very reli- 
gions of the world have completed human 
wretchedness by obdurating the heart, by giving 
birth to sanguinary superstitions, and by intro- 
ducing a corruption of morals destructive of the 
very elements of well-ordered society. Part of 
these evils are permitted by the Supreme Govern- 
or, and part inflicted, either by connecting them 
as consequents to certain actions, or to the con- 
stitution of the natural world more immediately ; 
but, whether permitted or inflicted, they are 
punitive acts of his administration, and present 
him before us, notwithstanding innumerable in- 
stances of his benevolence, as a Being of "ter- 
rible majesty." 2 

To remove in part the awful mystery which 
overhangs such an administration, the most sober 
Theists of former times, differing from the horde 
of vulgar blasphemers and metaphysical Atheists 
who have arisen in our own day, have been 
ready to suppose another state of being, to which 
the present has respect, and which may discover 
some means of connecting this permission of 
evil, and this infliction of misery, (often on the 
apparently innocent,) with the character of a 
Governor of perfect wisdom, equity, and good- 
ness. But in proportion as any one feels himself 
obliged to admit and to expect a state of future 

2 "Some men soom to think the only character of the 
Author of nature to be that of simple, absolute benevolence. 
There may possibly be in the creation beings to whom he 
manifests himself under this most amiable of all characters, 
for it is the most amiable, supposing it not. as perhaps it is 
not, incompatible with justice; hut he manifests himself to 
«s as a righteous Governor, lie may consistently with this 

be simply and absolutely benevolent ; hut he is. for he has 
given us a proof in the constitution and conduct of the 
world that ho is, a Governor over servants, as he rewards 
and punishes us for our actions." — Butler's Analogy* 



14 THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. [PART I. 

existence, lie must feel the necessity of being ! dence may only render the offence of man more 
assured that it will be a felicitous one. Yet | aggravated, and serve to strengthen the pre- 



should he be conscious of frequent trangressions 
of the Divine law, and at the same time see it 
demonstrated by facts occurring daily that in 
the present life the government of God is thus 
rigorous, the only fair conclusion to which he 
can come is, that the Divine government will be 
conducted on precisely the same principles in 
another, for an infinitely perfect being changes 
not. Further discoveries may then be made ; 
but they may go only to establish this point, that 
the apparent severity of his dispensations in the 
present life are quite consistent with justice, and 
even the continuod infliction of punishment with 
goodness itself, because other moral agents may 
be benefited by the example. The idea of a 
future life does not therefore relieve the case. 
If it be just that man should be punished here, 
it may be required, by the same just regard to 
the principles of a strictly moral government, 
that he should be punished hereafter. 

If, then, we are offenders against the majesty of 
so dread a Being as the actual administration of 
the world shows its Governor to be, it is in the 
highest degree necessary, if there be in him a dis- 
position to forgive our offences, that we should be 
made acquainted with it, and with the means and 
conditions upon which his placability can become 
available to us. If he is not disposed to forgive, 
we have the greatest cause for alarm : if an in- 
clination to forgive does exist in the Divine Mind, 
there is as strong a reason to presume that it is 
indicated to us somewhere, as that the law under 
which we are placed should have been expressly 
promulgated; and especially if such a scheme 
of bestowing pardon has been adopted as will 
secure the ends of moral government, and lead 
to our future obedience, — the only one which we 
can conceive to be worthy of God. 

Now it is not necessary to prove at length what 
is so obvious, that if we had no method of know- 
ing the will and purposes of God, but by inferring 
them from his works and his government, we 
could have no information as to any purpose in 
the Divine Mind to forgive his sinning creatures. 
The Theist, in order to support this hope, dwells 
upon the proofs of the goodness of God with 
which this world abounds, but shuts his eyes 
upon the demonstrations of his severity; yet 
these surround him as well as the other, and the 
argument from the severity of God is as forcible 
against pardon, as the argument from his good- 
ness is in its favor. At the best, it is left entirely 
uncertain: a ground is laid for heart-rending 
doubts and fearful anticipations; and, for any- 
thing he can show to the contrary, the goodness 
which God has displayed in nature and provi- 



sumption against the forgiveness of a wilful 
offender, rather than afford him any reason for 
hope. 

The whole of this argument is designed to 
prove, that had we been left, for the regulation 
of our conduct, to infer the will and purposes of 
the Supreme Being from his natural works, and 
his administration of the affairs of the world, 
our knowledge of both would have been essen- 
tially deficient ; and it establishes a strong pre- 
sumption in favor of a direct revelation from 
God to his creatures, that neither his will con- 
cerning us, nor the hope of forgiveness, might 
be left to dark and uncertain inference, but be the 
subjects of an express declaration. 



CHAPTER III. 

FURTHER PRESUMPTION OF A DIRECT REVELATION 
FROM THE WEAKNESS AND CORRUPTION OF 
HUMAN REASON, AND THE WANT OF AUTHORITY 
IN MERELY HUMAN OPINIONS. 

If we should allow that a perfect reason exer- 
cised in contemplating the natural works of God 
and the course of his moral government, might 
furnish us, by means of an accurate process of 
induction, with a sufficient rule to determine the 
quality of moral actions, and with sufficient mo- 
tives to obedience, yet the case would not be 
altered; for that perfect reason is not to be 
found among men. It would be useless to urge 
upon those who deny the doctrine of Scripture, 
as to the fall of man, that his understanding and 
reason are weakened by the deterioration of his 
whole intellectual nature. But it will be quite 
as apposite to the argument to state a fact not 
to be controverted, that the reasoning powers of 
men greatly differ in strength; and that from 
premises, which all must allow to be somewhat 
obscure, different inferences would inevitably be 
drawn. Either then the Divine law would be 
what every man might take it to be, and, by 
consequence, a variable rule — a position which 
cannot surely be maintained — or many persons 
must fail of duly apprehending it. And though 
in this case it should be contended that he is not 
punishable who obeys the law as far as he knows 
it, yet surely the ends of a steady and wisely 
formed plan of general government would on 
this ground be frustrated. The presumption 
here also must therefore be in favor of an ex- 
press declaration of the will of God, in terms 
which the common understandings of men may * 



CH. III.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



15 



apprehend, as the only means by which sufficient 
moral direction can be given, and effectual con- 
trol exerted. 

The notion that by rational induction the •mil 
of God may be inferred from his acts in a suffi- 
cient degree for every purpose of moral direc- 
tion, is further vitiated by its assuming that men 
in general are so contemplative in their habits as 
to pursue such inquiries with interest ; and so 
well disposed as in most cases to make them with 
honesty. Neither of these is true. 

The mass of mankind neither are, nor ever 
have been, contemplative, and must therefore, if 
not otherwise instructed, remain ignorant of their 
duty ; for questions of virtue, morals, and reli- 
gion, as may be shown from the contentions of 
the wisest of men, do not for the most part lie 
level to the minds of the populace without a 
revelation. 1 

It is equally a matter of undoubted fact, that 
in all questions of morals which restrain the vices, 
passions, and immediate interests of men, con- 
viction is generally resisted, and the rule is 
brought down to the practice, rather than the 
practice raised to the rule ; so that the most 
flimsy sophisms are admitted as arguments, and 
principles the most lax displace those of rigid 
rectitude and virtue. This is matter of daily 
observation, and cannot be denied. The irre- 
sistible inference from this is, that at least the 
great body of mankind, not being accustomed to 
intellectual exercises ; not having even leisure 
for them, on account of their being doomed to 
sordid labors ; and not being disposed to conduct 
the investigation with care and accuracy, would 
never become acquainted with the will of the 
Supreme Governor, if the knowledge of it were 



1 "If philosophy had gone farther than it did, and from 
undeniable principles given us ethics in a science, like 
mathematics, in every part demonstrable, this yet would 
not have been so effectual to man in this imperfect state, 
nor proper for the cure. The greatest part of mankind 
want leisure or capacity for demonstration, nor can carry a 
train of proofs, which in that way they must always de- 
pend upon for conviction, and cannot be required to assent 
to till they see the demonstration. Wherever they stick, 
the teachers are always put upon proof, and must clear the 
doubt by a thread of coherent deductions from the first 
principle, how long or how intricate soever that be. And 
you may as soon hope to have all the day-laborers and 
tradesmen, the spinsters and dairy-maids, perfect mathe- 
maticians, as to have them perfect in ethics this way: 
having plain commands is the sure and only course to 
bring them to obedience and practice: the greatest part 
cannot know, and therefore they must believe. And I ask, 
whether one coming from heaven in the power of God, in 
full and clear evidence and demonstration of miracles, 
giving plain and direct rules of morality and obedienco, be 
not likelier to enlighten the bulk of mankind, and set them 
right in their duties, and bring them to do them, than by 
reasoning with them from general notions and principles 
of human reason ?"— Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity. 



only to be obtained from habitual observation 
and reasoning. Should it be said < ' that the 
intellectual and instructed part of mankind ought 
to teach the rest," it may be replied, that even 
that would be difficult, because their own know- 
ledge must be communicated to others by the 
same process of difficult induction through which 
they attain it themselves, or rational conviction 
could not be produced in the minds of the 
learners. The task would therefore be hopeless 
as to the majority, both from their want of time 
and intellectual capacity. But, if practicable, 
the Theistical system has no provision for such 
instruction. It neither makes it the duty of 
some to teach, nor of others to learn. It has no 
authorized teachers ; no day of rest from labor, 
on which to collect the auditors ; no authorized 
religious ordinances by which moral truth may 
be brought home to the ears and the hearts of 
men; and, if it had, its best knowledge being 
rather contained in diffuse and hesitating specu- 
lation, than concentrated in maxims and first 
principles, embodied in a few plain words, which 
at once indicate some master mind fully adequate 
to the whole subject, and suddenly irradiate the 
understandings of the most listless and illiterate, 
it would be taught in vain. 

Let us, however, suppose the truth discovered, 
the teachers of it appointed, and days for the 
communication of instruction set apart. With 
what authority would these teachers be invested ? 
They plead no commission from Him whose will 
they affect to teach, and they work no miracles 
in confirmation of the truth of their doctrine. 
That doctrine cannot, from the nature of things, 
be mathematically demonstrated so as to enforce 
conviction, and it would therefore be considered, 
and justly considered, as the opinion of the 
teacher, and nothing but an opinion, to which 
every one might listen or not without any con- 
sciousness of violating an obligation, and which 
every one might and would receive as his own 
judgment agreed with or dissented from his un- 
authorized teacher, or as his interests and pas- 
sions might commend or disparage the doctrine 
so taught. 2 

2 " Let it be granted, (though not true,) that all the moral 
precepts of the gospel were known by somebody or other 
among mankind before. But where, or how, or of what 
use, is not considered. Suppose they may be picked up 
here and there: somo from Solon and Bias, in Greece; 
others from Tully, in Italy; and, to complete the work, 
let Confucius, as far as China, bo consulted, and Ana- 
chaksis, the Scythian, contribute bin share, What will all 
this do to give the world a complete moral it;/, that may bo 
to mankind the unquestionable rule of life and manners? 
What would this amount to toward being a Steady nil*, a 
certain transcript of a law that we are under? DM the 
saying of Aristippus or Confucius give it an authority ? 
Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind? If not, what ho or any 



16 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[TART I. 



Facts are sufficiently in proof of this. The 
sages of antiquity were moral teachers: they 
founded schools ; they collected disciples ; they 
placed their fame in their wisdom ; yet there 
was little agreement among them, even upon the 
first principles of religion and morals ; and they 
neither generally reformed their own lives, nor 
those of others. This is acknowledged by Cicero : 
"Do you think that these things had any influ- 
ence upon the men (a very few excepted) who 
thought and wrote and disputed about them? 
Who is there of all the philosophers, whose mind, 
life, and manners, were conformable to right 
reason ? Who ever made his philosophy the law 
and rule of his life, and not a mere show of his 
wit and parts ? Who observed his own instruc- 
tions, and lived in obedience to his own precepts ? 
On the contrary, many of them were slaves to 
filthy lusts, many to pride, many to covetous- 
ness," etc. 1 

Such a system of moral direction and control, 
then, could it be formed, would bear no compari- 
son to that which is provided by direct and ex- 
ternal revelation, of which the doctrine, though 
delivered by different men, in different ages, is 
consentaneous throughout ; which is rendered 
authoritative by Divine attestation ; which con- 
sists in clear and legislative enunciation, and not 
in human speculation and laborious inference ; 
of which the teachers were as holy as their doc- 
trine was sublime ; and which in all ages has 
exerted a powerful moral influence upon the 
conduct of men. "I know of but one Phaedo 
and one Polemon throughout all Greece," saith 
Origen, "who were ever made better by their 
philosophy ; whereas, Christianity hath brought 
back its myriads from vice to virtue." 

All these considerations then still further sup- 
port the presumption, that the will of God has 
been the subject of express revelation to man, be- 
cause such a declaration of it is the only one 
which can be conceived adequate ; complete ; 

OF COMMON APPREHENSION ' SUFFICIENTLY ATJ- 



other philosopher delivered was but a saying of his. Man- 
kind might hearken to it, or reject it, as they pleased, or 
as it suited their interest, passions, principles, or humors : 
they -were under no obligation : the opinion of this or that 
philosopher was of no authority." — Locke's Reasonable- 
ness, etc. 

" The truths which the philosophers proved by specula- 
tive reason, were destitute of some more sensible authority 
to back them ; and the precepts which they laid down, how 
reasonable soever in themselves, seemed still to want 
weight, and to be no more than precepts op men." — Dr. 
Sam. Clarke. 

l Sed hsec eadem num censes apud eos ipsos valere, nisi 
admodum paucos, a quibus inventa, disputata, conscripta 
Bunt ? Quotus enim quisque philosophorum invenitur, qui 
Bit ita moratus, ita animo ac vita constitutus, ut ratio pos- 
tulat ? etc.— Tusc. Quest. 2. 



THORITATIYE ; AND ADAPTED TO THE CIRCUM- 
STANCES OF MANKIND. 



CHAPTER IV. 

FURTHER PROOFS OF THE WEAKNESS AND UNCER- 
TAINTY OF HUMAN REASON. 

The opinion that sufficient notices of the will 
and purposes of God with respect to man, may 
be collected by rational induction from his works 
and government, attributes too much to the 
power of human reason, and the circumstances 
under which, in that case, it must necessarily 
commence its exercise. 

Human reason must be taken, as it is in fact, 
a weak and erring faculty, and as subject to have 
its operations suspended or disturbed by the in- 
fluence of vicious principles and attachment to 
earthly things ; neither of which can be denied, 
however differently they may be accounted for. 

It is another consideration of importance that 
the exercise of reason is limited by our know- 
ledge : in other words, that it must be furnished 
with subjects which it may arrange, compare, 
and judge ; for beyond what it clearly conceives 
its power does not extend. 

It does not follow that because many doc- 
trines in religion and many rules in morals carry 
clear and decided conviction to the judgment 
instantly upon their being proposed, they were 
discoverable, in the first instance, by rational in- 
duction, any more than that the great and simple 
truths of philosophy, which have been brought 
to light by the efforts of men of superior minds, 
were within the compass of ordinary understand- 
ings, because, after they were revealed by those 
who made the discovery, they instantly com- 
manded the assent of almost all to whom they 
were proposed. The very first principles of 
what is called natural religion 2 are probably of 



2 The term natural religion is often used equivocally. 
"Some understand by it every thing in religion, with 
regard to truth and duty, which, when once discovered, 
may be clearly shown to have a real foundation in the 
nature and relations of things, and which unprejudiced 
reason will approve, when fairly proposed and set in a 
proper light ; and accordingly very fair and goodly schemes 
of natural religion have been drawn up by Christian phi- 
losophers and divines, in which they have comprehended a 
considerable part of what is contained in the Scripture 
revelation. In this view, natural religion is not so called 
because it was originally discovered by natural reason, but 
because, when once known, it is what the reason of man- 
kind, duly exercised, approves, as founded in truth and 
nature. Others take natural religion to signify that reli- 
gion which men discover in the sole exercise of their natural 
faculties, without higher assistance." — Let.axp. 



CH. IV.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



17 



this kind. The reason of man, though it should 
assent to them, though the demonstration of 
them should be now easy, may be indebted even 
for them to the revelation of a superior mind, 
and that mind the mind of God. 1 

This is rendered the more probable, inasmuch 
as the great principles of all religion, the exist- 
ence of God, the immortality of the human soul, 
the accountableness of man, the good or evil 
quality of the most important moral actions, 
have, by none who have written upon them, by 
no legislator, poet, or sage of antiquity, however 
ancient, been represented as discoveries made by 
them in the course of rational investigation; but 
they are spoken of as things commonly known 
among men, which they propose to defend, ex- 
plain, demonstrate, or deny, according to their 
respective opinions. If we overlook the inspira- 
tion of the writings of Moses, they command 
respect as the most ancient records in the world, 
and as embodying the religious opinions of the 

1 "When truths are once known to us, though by tradi- 
tion, we are apt to be favorable to our own parts, and as- 
cribe to our own understanding the discovery of what, in 
reality, we borrowed from others ; or, at least, finding we 
can prove what at first we learnt from others, we are for- 
ward to conclude it an obvious truth, which, if we had 
sought, we could not have missed. Nothing seems hard to 
our understandings that is once known ; and because what 
we see, we see with our own eyes, we are apt to overlook 
or forget the help we had from others who showed it us, 
and first made us see it, as if we were not at all beholden 
to them for those truths they opened the way to, and led 
us into; for, knowledge being only of truths that are per- 
ceived to be so, we are favorable enough to our own faculties 
to conclude that they, of their own strength, would have 
attained those discoveries without any foreign assistance, 
and that we know those truths by the strength and native 
light of our own minds, as they did from whom we received 
them by theirs, — only they had the luck to be before us. 
Thus the whole stock of human knowledge is claimed by 
every one as his private possession, as soon as he (profiting 
by others' discoveries) has got it into his own mind ; and 
so it is ; but not properly by his own single industry, nor 
of his own acquisition. He studies, it is true, and takes 
pains to make a progress in what others have delivered ; 
but their pains were of another sort who first brought those 
truths to light which he afterwards derives from them. He 
that travels the roads now, applauds his own strength and 
legs, that have carried him so far in such a scantling of 
time, and ascribes all to his own vigor, little considering 
how much he owes to their pains who clearod the woods, 
drained the bogs, built the bridges, and made the ways 
passablo, without which he might have toiled much with 
little progress. A great many things which we have been 
bred up in the boliof of from our cradles and are now grown 
familiar, (and, as it were, natural to us undor the gospel,) 
we take for unquestionable, obvious truths, and easily de- 
monstrable, without considering how long wo might havo 
been in doubt or ignorance of thorn had rovelation been 
silent. And many others are beholden to rovolation who 
do not acknowledge it. It is no diminishing to revelation, 
that reason gives its suffrage too to the truths rovolation 
has discovered ; but it is our mistake to think that, becauso 
reason confirms them to us, wo had the first certain know- 
ledge of them from thence, and in that clear ovidonco wo 
now possess thorn." — Locke. 
2 



earliest ages ; but Moses nowhere pretends to be 
the author of any of these fundamental truths. 
The book of Genesis opens with the words, "In 
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;" 
but here the term "God" is used familiarly, and 
it is taken for granted that both the name and 
the idea conveyed by it were commonly received 
by the people for whom Moses wrote. 

The same writer gives the history of ages 
much higher than his own, and introduces the 
patriarchs of the human race holding conversa- 
tions with one another, in which the leading sub- 
jects of religion and morals are often incidentally 
introduced ; but they are never presented to us 
in the form of discussion : no patriarch, however 
high his antiquity, represents himself as the dis- 
coverer of these first principles, though he 
might, as Noah, be a "preacher" of that " right- 
eousness" which was established upon them. 
Moses mentions the antediluvians who were 
inventors of the arts of working metals, and of 
forming and playing upon musical instruments ; 
but he introduces no one as the inventor of any 
branch of moral or religious science, though 
they are so much superior in importance to man- 
kind. 

In further illustration it may be observed, 
that, in point of fact, those views on the subjects 
just mentioned which, to the reason of all sober 
Theists, since the Christian revelation was given, 
appear the most clear and satisfactory, have 
been found nowhere, since patriarchal times, 
except in the Scriptures, which profess to em- 
body the true religious traditions and revelations 
of all ages, or among those whose reason derived 
principles from these revelations on which to 
establish its inferences. 

We generally think it a truth, easily and con- 
vincingly demonstrated, that there is a God : 
and yet many of the philosophers of antiquity 
speak doubtingly on this point, and some of them 
denied it. At the present day, not merely a few 
speculative philosophers in the heathen world, 
but the many millions of the human race who 
profess the religion of Budhu, not only deny a 
Supreme First Cause, but dispute with subtlety 
and vehemence against the doctrine. 

We feel that our reason rests with full satisfac- 
tion in the doctrine that all things are created 
by one eternal and self-oxistcnt Being ; but the 
Greek philosophers held that matter was eternally 
coexistent with God. This was the opinion of 
Flato, who has boen called the Moses of philo- 
sophers. Through the wholo "Tima-i/s," Plato 
supposes two eternal and independent causes 
of all things: one, that by wbioh all things are 
made, which is God: the other, that from whieh 
all things are made, which is matter. Dr. Cud- 



18 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PAEI I. 



"worth has in vain attempted to clear Plato of 
targe. Hie learned Dr. Thomas Burnet, 
who was well acquainted with the opinions of the 
ancients. Bays that "the Ionic. Pythagoric, Pla- 
tonic, and Stoic schools all agreed in asserting ; 
the eternity of matter: and that the doctrine 

matter was created out of nothing, seems to ; 
hare been unknown to the philosophers, and is 
one of which they had no notion." Aristotle j 
rted the eternity :: :hr world, both in '■ 
matter and form too, which was but an easy 
deduction from the former principle, and is i 
sufficiently in proof of its Atheistical tendency, j 

The same doctrine was extensively spread at 
a very ancient period throughout the east, and 
plainly takes away a great part of the founda- 
tion of those argumei.:; fox the existence of a 



them invented subordinate agents to carry en the 
affairs of the world — beings often divided among 
themselves, and subject to human passions — there- 
by destroying the doctrine of providence, and 
taking away the very foundation of human trust 
in a Supreme Power. This invention of subordi- 
n ite leities gave birth to idolatry, which is suffi- 
ciently in proof both of its extent and antiquity. 
The beautiful and well-sustained series of 
arguments which have often in modern times 
been brought to support the presumption "-that 
the. human soul is immortal." may be read with 
profit: but it is not to be accounted for that 
those who profess to confine themselves to human 
: r as :n in the inquiry, should argue with so much 
greater strength than the philosophers of ancient 
times, except that they have received assistance 



Supreme Deity on which the n . rns have so . from a source which they are unfair enough not 



confidently rested for the demonstration cf the 
existence of God by rational induction, whether 
~n from the works of nature, or from meta- 
i;al principles: so much are those able 
works which have been written on this subject 
indebted to that revelation on which their authors 
too often close their eyes, for the very bases on 
which their most convincing arguments are built. 
The same Atheistical results logically followed 
from the ancient Magian doctrine of two eternal j 
principles, one good and the other evil : a notion 
which also infected the Greek schools, as appears 
from the example of Plutarch, and the instances 
adduced by him. 

No one enlightened by the Scriptures, whether 
he acknowledges his obligations to them or not, 
has ever been betrayed into so great an absurdity 
as tc deny the i of the human soul : 

and yet, where the light of revelation has not j 
spread, absurd and destructive to morals as this 
notion is. it very extensively prevails. The 
opinion that the human soul is a part of God, 
enclosed for a short time in matter, but still a 
portion of his essence, runs through much of the 
Greek philosophy. It is still more ancient than 
that : and. at the present day, the same opinion 
destroys all idea of accountability among those 
who in India follow the Brahminical system. 
" The human soul is God, and the acts of the 
human soul are therefore the acts of God." 
This is the popular argument by which their 
crimes are justified. 

The doctrine of one supreme, all-wise, and 

uncontrollable Providence, commends itself to 

our reason as one of the noblest and most 

rting of truths ; but we are not to overlook 



to acknowledge. Some fine passages on this 
subject may be collected from Plato, Cicero, 
Seneca, and others ; but we must take them with 
others which express sometimes doubt, and some- 
times unbelief. With us this is a matter of 
general belief : but not so with the generality of 
either ancient or modern pagans. The same 
darkness which obscured the glory of God, pro- 
portionally diminished the glory of man — his 
true and proper immortality. The very ancient 
notion of an absorption of souls back again into 
the Divine Essence was with the ancients, what 
we know it to be now in the metaphysical sys- 
tem of the Hindoos, a denial of individual 
immortality; nor have the demonstrations of 
reason done any thing to convince the other 
grand division of metaphysical pagans into which 
modern heathenism is divided, the followers of 
, Budhu, who believe in the total annihilation of 
i both men and gods after a series of ages — a 
I point of faith held probably by the majority of 
| the present race of mankind. 1 



1 - The religion of Budhu," says Dr. Davy, u is more 
widely extended than any other religion. It appears to be 
the religion of the whole of Tartary, of China, of Japan, 
and their dependencies, and of all the countries I : 
China and the Bnrrampooter. 

'•The Budhists do not believe in the existence of a 
Supreme Bei-_ i .■'.:- aristent and eternal, the creator and 
preserver of the universe ; indeed, it is doubtful if they 
believe in the existence and operation of any cause beside 
fete and necessity, to which they seem to refer all changes 
in the moral and physical world. They appear to be 
Materialists in the strictest sense of the term, and to have 
no notion of pure spirit or mind. Prane and hittc. life 
and intelligence, the most learned of them appear to con- 
sider identical : — seated in the heart, radiating from thence 



j to different part3 of the body, like heat from a fire; — 

the source from whence even those draw it who uncreated, without beginning, at least that they know of; 

think the reason of man equal to its full develop- -<»P»Me of being modified by a variety of circumstances, 

-, . . , , . like the breath in different musical instruments : — and. like 

ment. bo far were pagans from being able to | a Tapor? ^^ of pMriDg ^ one body to m 

conceive SO lofty a thought, that the wisest of and, like a flame, liable to be extinguished and totally annihi- 



CH. V.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



19 



These instances might be enlarged ; but they 
amply show that they who speak of the suffi- 
, ciency of human reason in matters of morals and 
religion, neglect almost all the facts which the 
history of human opinion furnishes ; and that 
they owe all their best views to that fountain of 
inspiration from which they so criminally turn 
aside. For how otherwise can the instances we 
have just mentioned be explained ? and how is 
it that those fundamental principles in morals 
and religion, which modern philosophers have 
exhibited as demonstrable by the unassisted 
powers of the human mind, were either held 
doubtfully, or connected with some manifest 
absurdity, or utterly denied, by the wisest moral 
teachers among the Gentiles, who lived before 
the Christian revelation was given? They had 
the same works of God to behold, and the same 
course of providence to reason from, to neither 
of which were they inattentive. They had 
intellectual endowments, which have been the 
admiration of all subsequent ages ; and their 
reason was rendered acute and discriminative by 
the discipline of mathematical and dialectic 
science. They had every thing which the 
moderns have except the Bible ; and yet, on 
points which have been generally settled among 
the moral philosophers of our own age as funda- 
mental to natural religion, they had no just 
views, and no settled conviction. "The various 
apprehensions of wise men," says Cicero, "will 
justify the doubtings and demurs of skeptics, 
and it will then be sufficient to blame them, si 
aut consenserint alii, aut erit inventus aliquis, qui 
quid verum sit invenerit, when others agree, or any 
one has found out the truth. We say not that 
nothing is true, but that some false things are 
annexed to all that is true, tanta similitudine ut 
Us nulla sit certa judicandi, et assentiendi nota, 
and that, with so much likeness, there is no 
certain note of judging what is true, or assenting 
to it. We deny not that something may be true ; 
percipi posse negamus, but we deny that it can be 
perceived so to be ; for quid habemus in rebus 
bonis et malis explorati, what have we certain 
concerning good and evil ? Nor for this are we 
to be blamed, but nature, which has hidden the 
truth in the deep, naiuram accusa quoz in prof undo 
veritatem pcnitus abstruserit." — Vide De Nat. Deo- 
rum, lib. 1, n. 10, 11. Acad. Qu. lib. 2, n. 66, 120. 

latcd. Gods, demons, men, reptiles, even the minutest and 
most imperfect animalcules, they consider as similar 
beings, formed of the four elements— hoat, air, water, and 
that which is tangible, and animated by prune and Jtiila. 
Tbey believe that a man may become a god or a demon; or 
that a god may becomo a man or an animalculo : that ordi- 
nary death is merely a change of form; and that this 
change is almost infinite, and bounded only by annihila- 
tion, which they esteem tho acme of happiness I" — Account 
of Ceylon. 



On this subject Dr. Samuel Clarke, though so 
great an advocate of natural religion, concedes 
that, "of the philosophers, some argued them- 
selves out of the belief of the very being of a 
God: some by ascribing all things to chance, 
others to absolute fatality, equally subverted all 
true notions of religions, and made the doctrine 
of the resurrection of the dead, and a future judg- 
ment, needless and impossible. Some professed 
open immorality, others by subtle distinctions 
patronized particular vices. The better sort of 
them, who were most celebrated, discoursed with 
the greatest reason, yet with much uncertainty 
and doubtfulness, concerning things of the high- 
est importance — the providence of God in govern- 
ing the world, the immortality of the soul, and a 
future judgment. " 

If such facts prove the weakness and insuffi- 
ciency of human reason, those just thoughts 
respecting God, his providence, his will, and a 
future state, which sometimes appear in the 
writings of the wisest heathen, are not, however, 
on the contrary, to be attributed to its strength. 
Even if they were, the argument for the suffi- 
ciency of reason would not be much advanced 
thereby; for the case would then be, that the 
reason which occasionally reached the truth had 
not firmness enough to hold it fast, and the 
pinion which sometimes bore the mind into fields 
of light, could not maintain it in its elevation. 
But it cannot even be admitted that the truth 
which occasionally breaks forth in their works 
was the discovery of their own powers. There 
is much evidence to show that they were indebted 
to a traditional knowledge much earlier than 
their own day, and that moral and religious 
knowledge among them received occasional and 
important accessions from the descendants of 
Abraham, a people who possessed records which, 
laying aside the question of their inspiration for 
the present, all candid Theists themselves will 
acknowledge contain noble and just views of 
God, and a correct morality. While it cannot be 
proved that human reason made a single dis- 
covery in either moral or religious truth, it may 
be satisfactorily established that just notions as 
to both were placed within its reach, which it 
first obscured, and then corrupted. 



CHAPTER V. 

TIIE ORIGIN OF THOSE TRUTHS WHICn ARE FOUND 
IN THE WRITINGS AND RBLIQIOUS SYSTEMS OF 
THE HEATHEN. 

We have soon that some of the leading- truths 
of religion and morals, which are adverted to by 



50 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



heathen writers, or assumed in heathen systems, 
are spoken of as truths previously known to the 
world, and with which mankind were familiar. 
Also, that no legislator, poet, - or philosopher of 
antiquity, ever pretended to the discovery of the 
doctrines of the existence of a God, of provi- 
dence, a future state, and of the rules by which 
actions are determined to be good or evil, 
whether these opinions were held by them with 
full conviction of their certainty, or only doubt- 
fully. That they were transmitted by tradition 
from an earner age, or were brought from some 
collateral source of information, or that they 
flowed from both, are, therefore, the only rational 
conclusions. 

To tradition the wisest of the heathen often 
acknowledge themselves indebted. 

A previous age of superior truth, rectitude, 
and happiness, sometimes called the golden age, 
was a commonly received notion among them. 
It is at least as high as Hesiod, who rivals 
Homer in antiquity. It was likewise a common 
opinion that sages existed in ages anterior to 
their own, who received knowledge from the 
gods, and communicated it to men. The wisest 
heathens, notwithstanding the many great things , 
said of nature and reason, derive the origin, ' 
obligation, and efficacy of laic from the gods j 
alone. ' ; Xo mortal," says Plato in his republic, ' 
••can make laws to purpose." Demosthenes! 
calls law eipTjfia nal dfipov Qeov, "the invention 
and gift of God." They speak of vofioi uypapoi, 
••unwritten laws," and ascribe both them, and 
the laws which were introduced by their various 
legislators, to the gods. Xenophon represents 
the opinion of Socrates, that the unwritten 
laws received over the -whole earth, which it was 
impossible that all mankind, as being of different 
languages, and not to be assembled in one place, 
should make, were given by the gods. 1 Plato 



1 Xen. Mem. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 19, 20. — To the same 

:; that noble passage of Cicero cited by Lactantius out 
of bis -work D>: Republica. 

• Est quidem vera lex, recta ratio, naturae congruens, dif- 
fusa in omnes. constans, sempiterna, qua* Tocet ad officium 
jubendo, vetando, a fraude deterreat; quae tamen neque 
probos frustra jubet. aut vetat ; nee improbos jubendo aut 
vetando movet. Huic legi nee abrogari fas est ; nee dero- 
gari ex hac aliquid licet : neque tota abrogari potest. Xec 

\:t per senatuni, aut per populum solvi hac lege pos- 
sumus; neque est quaerendus explanator, aut interpres 
<*jus alius. Xec enini alia lex Roma, alia Athenis, alia 
nunc, alia posthac ; sed et omnes gentes, et omni tempore, 
una lex et sempiterna et immutabilis continebit ; unusque 

rnmunis quasi magister et imperator omnium Deus, 
ilk lc-gis hujus inventor, disceptator, lator: cui qui non 
parebit, ipse se fugiet, ac naturam hominis aspernabitur ; 
atque hoc ipso luet maximas poenas, etiamsi castera suppli- 
cia, quae putantur, effugerit." — From -which it is clear that 
acknowledged a law antecedent to all human civil 

.rions. and independent of them, binding upon all, 



[PART I. 

is express on this subject: "After a certain 
flood, which but few escaped, on the increase 
of mankind, they had neither letters, writing, 
nor laws, but obeyed the manners and institu- 
tions of their fathers as laws : but when colonies 
separated from them, they took an elder for their 
leader, and in their new settlements retained the 
customs of their ancestors, those especially which 
related to their gods ; and thus transmitted them to 
their posterity : they imprinted them on the minds 
of their sons; and they did the same to their 
children. This was the origin of right laws, and 
of the different forms of government." — De 
Ley. 3. 

This so exactly harmonizes with the Mosaic 
account, as to the flood of Xoah, the origin of 
nations, and the Divine institution of religion 
and laws, that either the patriarchal traditions 
embodied in the writings of Moses had gone 
down with great exactness to the times of 
Plato ; or the writings of Moses were known to 
him ; or he had gathered the substance of them, 
in his travels, from the Egyptian, the Chaldean, 
or the Magian philosophers. 

Nor is this an unsupported hypothesis. The 
evidence is most abundant that the primitive 
source from whence every great religious and 
moral truth was drawn, must be fixed in that 
part of the world where Moses places the dwell- 
ing of the patriarchs of the human race, who 
walked with God, and received the law from his 
mouth. 2 There, in the earliest times, civiliza- 
tion and polity were found, while the rest of the 
earth was covered with savage tribes — a suffi- 
cient proof that Asia was the common centre 
from whence the rest of mankind dispersed, 
who. as they wandered from these primitive 
seats, and addicted themselves more to the chase 
than to agriculture, became in most instances 
barbarous. 3 



constant and perpetual, the same in all times and places — 
not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens: of an 
authority so high, that no human power had the right to 
alter or annul it : having God for its author, in his char- 
acter of universal Master and Sovereign : taking hold of 
the very consciences of men, and following them with its 
animadversions, though they should escape the hand of 
man, and the penalties of human codes. 

• •• The east was the source of knowledge, from whence 
it was communicated to the western parts of the world. 
There the most precious remains of ancient tradition were 
found. Thither the most celebrated Greek philosophers 
travelled in quest of science, or the knowledge of things 
Divine and human, and thither the lawgivers had re- 
course in order to their being instructed in laws and civil 
policy."'— Lela>-t>. 

3 The speculations of infidels as to the gradual pr s 
of the original men from the savage life, and the invention 
of language, arts, laws, etc., have been too much coun- 
tenanced by philosophers bearing the name of Christ ; some 
of them even holding the office of teachers of his religion. 



CH. V.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



21 



In the multifarious and bewildering super- 
stitions of all nations, we also discover a very 
remarkable substratum of common tradition and 
religious faith. 

The practice of sacrifice, which may at once 
be traced into all nations, and to the remotest 
antiquity, affords an eminent proof of the com- 
mon origin of religion: inasmuch as no reason 
drawn from the nature of the rite itself, or the 
circumstances of men, can be given for the uni- 
versality of the practice ; and as it is clearly a 
positive institute, and opposed to the interests 
of men, it can only be accounted for by an 
injunction, issued at a very early period of the 
world, and solemnly imposed. This injunction, 
indeed, received a force, either from its original 
appointment, or from subsequent circumstances, 
from which the human mind could never free 
itself. "There continued," says Dr. Shuckford, 
" for a long time among the nations usages which 
show that there had been an ancient universal 
religion; several traces of which appeared in 
the rites and ceremonies which were observed 
in religious worship. Such was the custom 
of sacrifices expiatory and precatory ; both the 
sacrifices of animals, and the oblations of wine, 
oil, and the fruits and products of the earth. 
These and other things which were in use among 
the patriarchs, obtained also among the Gen- 
tiles." 

The events, and some of the leading opinions 
of the earliest ages, mentioned in Scripture, 
may also be traced among the most barbarous, 
as well as in the Oriental, the Grecian, and the 
Roman systems of mythology. Such are the 

FORMATION OF THE WORLD : the FALL AND COR- 
RUPTION of man: the hostility of a powerful 
and supernatural agent of wickedness, under 
his appropriate and scriptural emblem, the Ser- 
pent : the DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD BY WATER : 
the REPEOPLING OF IT BY THE SONS OF NOAH : 
the EXPECTATION OF ITS FINAL DESTRUCTION BY 

fire ; and, above all, the promise of a great and 
Divine Deliverer. 1 

The only method of accounting for this is, 
that the same traditions were transmitted from 
the progenitors of the different families of man- 
kind after the flood ; that in some places they 
were strengthened and the impressions deep- 
ened by successive revelations, which assumed 



The writings of Mosos sufficiently show that there novor 
was a period in which the original tribeB of men were in a 
savage state; and tho gradual process of the development 
of a highor condition is a chimera. To those who profess 
to believe tho Scriptures, their testimony ought to be suiii- 
ciont : to those who do not, they are at least as good history 
as any other. 
1 See noto A at tho end of this chapter. 



the first traditions, as being of Divine original, 
for their basis, and thus renewed the know- 
ledge which had formerly been communicated, 
at the very time they enlarged it ; and further, 
that from the written revelations which were 
afterwards made to one people, some rays of re- 
flected light were constantly glancing upon the 
surrounding nations. 

Nor are we at a loss to trace this communica- 
tion of truth from a common source to the 
Gentile nations ; and also to show that they 
actually did receive accessions of information, 
both directly and indirectly, from a people who 
retained the primitive theological system in its 
greatest purity. 

We shall see sufficient reasons, when we come 
to speak on that subject, to conclude that all 
mankind have descended from one common pair. 

If man is now a moral agent, the first man 
must be allowed to have been a moral agent; 
and, as such, under rules of obedience : in which 
rules it is far more probable that he should be 
instructed by his Maker by means of direct com- 
munication, than that he should be left to collect 
the will of his Maker from observation and 
experience. Those who deny the Scripture 
account of the introduction of death into the 
world, and think the human species were always 
liable to it, are bound to admit a revelation from 
God to the first pair as to the wholesomeness of cer- 
tain fruits, and the destructive habits of certain 
animals, or our first progenitors would have 
been far more exposed to danger from delete- 
rious fruits, etc., and in a more miserable con- 
dition through their fears, than any of their 
descendants, because they were without expe- 
rience, and could have no information. 2 But it 
is far more probable that they should have 
express information as to the will of God con- 
cerning their conduct ; for until they had settled, 
by a course of rational induction, what was 
right and what wrong, they could not, properly 
speaking, be moral agents; and, from the diffi- 
culties of such an inquiry, especially until they 
had had a long experience of the steady course 
of nature, and the effect of certain actions upon 
themselves and society, they might possibly 
arrive at very different conclusions. 3 

But in whatever way the moral and religious 
knowledge of the first man was obtained, if he 
is allowed to have been under an efficient law, 
he must at least have known, in order to the 
right regulation of himself, every truth essential 



2 Soo Delaney's Revelation Examined with Candor, Dis- 
sertations 1 and 2. 

8 "It is very probable," says Puffendorf, "that God 
taught the first men the ohief heads of natural law." 



QO 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part I. 



to religion, and to personal, domestic, and social 
morals. The truth on these subjects was as 
essential to him as to his descendants, and more 
especially because he was so soon to be the head 
and the paternal governor, by a natural relation, 
of a numerous race, and to possess, by virtue 
of that office, great influence over them. If 
we assume, therefore, that the knowledge of the 
first man was taught to his children — and it 
were the greatest absurdity to suppose the con- 
trary — then, whether he received his information 
on the principal doctrines of religion, and the 
principal rules of morals, by express revelation 
from God, or by the exercise of his own natural 
powers, all the great principles of religion, and 
of personal, domestic, and social morals, must 
have been at once communicated to his children, 
immediately descending from him ; and we clear- 
ly enough see the reason why the earliest writers 
on these subjects never pretend to have been 
the discoverers of the leading truths of morals 
and religion, but speak of them as opinions 
familiar to men, and generally received. This 
primitive religious and moral system, as far as 
regards first principles, and all their important 
particular applications, was also complete, or 
there had been neither efficient religion nor 
morality in the first ages, which is contrary to all 
tradition, and to all history ; and that this sys- 
tem was actually transmitted, is clear from this, 
that the wisdom of very early ages consisted 
not bo much in natural and speculative science, 
as in moral notions, rules of conduct, and an 
acquaintance with the opinions of the wise of still 
earlier periods. 

The few persons through whom this system 
was transmitted to Xoah — for in fact Methuselah 
was contemporary both with Adam and Xoah — 
rendered any great corruption impossible ; and 
therefore the crimes charged upon the antedilu- 
vians are violence and other immoralities, rather 
than the corruption of truth; and Xoah was "a 
preacher of righteousness" rather than a restorer 
of doctrine. 

The flood, 1 being so awful and marked a decla- 
ration of God's ansrer against the violation of the 



1 Whatever maybe thought respecting the circumstances 
of the flood as mentioned by Moses, there is nothing in 
that event, considered as the punishment of a guilty race, 
and as giving an attestation of God's approbation c: 
principles and a right conduct, to which a consistent Theist 
can object. For if the will of God is to be collected from 
observing the course of nature and providence, such 
and remarkable events in his government as the deluge, 
whether universal or only coextensive with the existing 
race of men, may be expected to occur; and especially 
when an almost universal punishment, as connected with 
au almost universal wickedness, so strikingly indicated an 
observant and a righteous government. 



laws of this primitive religion, would give great 
force and sanction to it, as a religious system, 
in the minds of Xoah/s immediate descendants. 
The existence of God : his providence : his 
favor to the good : his anger against evil-doers : 
the great rules of justice and mercy : the prac- 
tice of a sacrificial worship : the observance of 
the Sabbath: the promise of a Deliverer, and 
other similar tenets, were among the articles and 
religious rites of this primitive system ; nor can 
any satisfactory account be given why they were 
transmitted to so many people, in different parts 
of the world; why they have continued to 
glimmer through the darkness of paganism to 
this day ; why we find them more or less recog- 
nized in the mythology, traditions, and customs 
of almost all ages ancient and modern, except 
that they received some original sanction of great 
efficacy, deeply fixing them in the hearts of the 
patriarchs of all the families of men. Those 
who deny the revelations contained in the Scrip- 
tures, have no means of accounting for these 
facts, which in themselves are indisputable. 
They have no theory respecting them which is 
not too childish to deserve serious refutation, 
and they usually prefer to pass them over in 
silence. But the believer in the Bible can account 
for them, and he alone. The destruction of 
wicked men by the flood put the seal of Heaven 
upon the religious system transmitted from 
Adam : and under the force of this Divine and 
unequivocal attestation of its truth, the sons and 
descendants of Xoah went forth into their differ- 
ent settlements, bearing for ages the deep im- 
pression of its sanctity and authority. The 
impression, it is true, at length gave way to vice, 
superstition, and false philosophy; but super- 
stition perverted truth rather than displaced it ; 
and the doctrines, the history, and even the hopes 
of the first ages, were never entirely banished 
even from those fables which became baleful 
substitutes for their simplicity. 

In the family of Abraham the true God was 
acknowledged. Melchizedec was the sovereign 
of one of the nations of Canaan, and priest of 
the most high God. and his subjects must there- 
fore have been worshippers of the true Divinity. 
Abimelech the Philistine and his people, both in 
Abraham's days and in Isaac's, were also wor- 
shippers of Jehovah, and acknowledged the same 
moral principles which were held sacred in the 
elect family. The revelations and promises 
made to Abraham would enlarge the boundaries 
of religious knowledge, both among the descend- 
ants of Ishmael, and those of his sons by Ketu- 
rah: as those made to Shem would, with the 
patriarchal theology, be transmitted to his pos- 
terity — the Persians, Assyrians, and Mesopota- 



CH. V.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



23 



mians. 1 In Egypt, even in the days of Joseph, 
he and the king of Egypt speak of the true God, 
as of a being mutually known and acknowledged. 
Upon the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan, 
they found a few persons in that perhaps primi- 
tive seat of idolatry who acknowledged "Jehovah 
to be God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath" 
Through the branch of Esau the knowledge of 
the true religion would pass from the family of 
Isaac, with its further illustrations in the cove- 
nants made with Abraham, to his descendants. 
Job and his friends, who probably lived between 
Abraham and Moses, were professors of the 
patriarchal religion ; and their discourses show 
that it was both a sublime and a comprehensive 
system. The plagues of Egypt and the miracu- 
lous escape cf the Israelites, and the destruction 
of the Canaanitish nations, were all parts of an 
awful controversy between the true God and the 
idolatry spreading in the world ; and could not 
fail of being largely noised abroad among the 
neighboring nations, and of making the religion 
of the Israelites known. (Jenkins's Reasonable- 
ness of Christianity, vol. i. chap. 2.) Balaam, a 
Gentile prophet, intermixes with his predictions 
many brief but eloquent assertions of the first 
principles of religion : the omnipotence of Deity, 
his universal providence, and the immutability 
of his counsels ; and the names and epithets 
which he applies to the Supreme Being are, as 
Bishop Horsley observes, the very same which 
are used by Moses, Job, and the inspired writers 
of the Jews, namely, God, the Almighty, the 
Most High, and Jehovah : which is a proof that, 
gross as the corruptions of idolatry were now 
become, the patriarchal religion was not forgotten, 
nor its language become obsolete. 

The frequent and public restorations of the 
Israelites to the principles of the patriarchal 
religion, after they had lapsed into idolatry, and 
fallen under the power of other nations, could 
not fail to make their peculiar opinions known 
among those with whom they were so often in 
relations of amity or war, of slavery or dominion. 
We have evidence collateral to that of the Scrip- 
tures, that the building of the celebrated temple 
of Solomon, and the fame of the wisdom of that 
monarch, produced not only a wide-spread 
rumor, but, as it was intended by Divine wisdom 
and goodness, moral effects upon the people of 
distant nations, and that the Abyssinians received 
the Jewish religion after the visit of the Queen 
of Shcba, the principles of that religion being 
probably found to accord with those ancient 
traditions of the patriarchs which remained 

i See Bishop IIorsley's Dissertations boforo referred to; 
and LeL/VND'8 View of the Necessity of Revelation, part i. 
chap. 2. 



among them. 2 The intercourse between the 
Jews and the states of Syria and Babylon on the 
one hand, and Egypt on the other, powers which 
rose to great eminence and influence in the 
ancient world, was maintained for many ages. 
Their frequent captivities and dispersions would 
tend to preserve in part, and in part to revive, 
the knowledge of the once common and universal 
faith ; for we have instances that, in the worst 
periods of their history, there were among the 
captive Israelites those who adhered with heroic 
steadfastness to their own religion. We have 
the instance of the female captive in the house 
of Naaman the Syrian, and, at a later period, 
the sublime example of the three Hebrew youths, 
and of Daniel in the court of Nebuchadnezzar. 
The decree of this prince, after the deliverance 
of Shadrach and his companions, ought not to be 
slightly passed over. It contained a public pro- 
clamation of the supremacy of Jehovah, in oppo- 
sition to the gods of his country; and that 
monarch, after his recovery from a singular dis- 
ease, became himself a worshipper of the true 
God; both of which are circumstances which 
could not but excite attention, among a learned 
and curious people, to the religious tenets of the 
Jews. We may add to this, also, that great 
numbers of the Jews preserving their Scriptures, 
and publicly worshipping the true God, never 
returned from the Babylonish captivity, but 
remained in various parts of that extensive em- 
pire after it was conquered by the Persians. 
The Chaldean philosophic schools, to which many 
of the Greek sages resorted for instruction, were 
therefore never without the means of acquaint- 
ance with the theological system of the Jews, 
however degenerate in process of time their wise 
men became, by addicting themselves to judicial 
astrology; and to the same sacred source the 
conquest of Babylon conducted the Persians. 

Cyrus, the celebrated subverter of the Baby- 
lonian monarchy, was of the Magian religion, 
whose votaries worshipped God under the emblem 
of fire, but held an independent and eternal 



2 The princes of Abyssinia claim descent from Menilek, 
the son of Solomon by the Queen of Sheba. The Abyssin- 
ians say she was converted to the Jewish religion. The 
succession is hereditary in the lino of Solomon, and the 
device of their kings is a lion passant, proper dpon a Hold 
gules, and their motto, "The lion of the race of Solomon 
and tribe of Judah hath overcome." The Abyssinian 
ennnch who was mot by Philip was not pro] erlj a Jewish 
proselyte, but an Abyssinian believer in Moses and the 
prophets. Christianity spread in this country at an early 
period; but many of the inhabitants to this day are of the 

Jewish religion. Tyre also must have derived an aeeession 
of religious information from its Intercourse with the 
Israelites in the time of Solomon, and we find llir.un the 
king blessing the Lord God of Israel "as the Maker of 
heaven and earth." 



24 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



principle of darkness and evil. He was, how- 
ever, somewhat prepared by his hostility to idols 
to listen to the tenets of the Jews ; and his favor 
to them sufficiently shows that the influence 
which Daniel's character, the remarkable facts 
which had occurred respecting him at the courts 
of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and the pre- 
dictions of his own success by Isaiah, had exerted 
on his mind, was very great. In his decree for 
the rebuilding of the temple, recorded in Ezra, 
chap, i., and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, he acknowledges 
"Jehovah to be the God of heaven ," who had given 
him his kingdom, and had charged him to rebuild 
the temple. Nor could this testimony in favor 
of the God of the Jews be without effect upon 
his subjects; one proof of which, and of the 
influence of Judaism upon the Persians, is, that 
in a short time after his reign, a considerable 
improvement in some particulars, and alteration 
in others, took place in the Magian religion, by an 
evident admixture with it of the tenets and cere- 
monies of the Jews. 1 And whatever improve- 
ments the theology of the Persians thus received 
— and they were not few nor unimportant — what- 
ever information they acquired as to the origin 
of the world, the events of the first ages, and 
questions of morals and religion, subjects after 
which the ancient philosophers made keen and 
eager inquiries, they could not but be known to 
the learned Greeks, whose intercourse with the 
Persians was continued for so long a period, and 
be transmitted also into that part of India into 
which the Persian monarchs pushed their con- 
quests. 

It is indeed unquestionable, that the credit in 
which the Jews stood, in the Persian empire : the 
singular events which brought them into notice 
with the Persian monarchs : the favor they after- 
wards experienced from Alexander the Great and 
his successors, who reigned in Egypt, where they 
became so numerous, and so generally spoke the 
Greek, that a translation of the Scriptures into 
that language was rendered necessary ; and their 
having in most of the principal cities of the 
Roman empire, even when most extended, indeed 
in all the cities which were celebrated for refine- 
ment and philosophy, their synagogues and public 
worship, in Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, at 
Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, etc., as we read in the 
Acts of the Apostles, and that for a long time 
before the Christian era, — rendered their tenets 
very widely known; and as these events took 
place after their final reformation from idolatry, 
the opinions by which they were distinguished 
were those substantially which are taught in the 
Scriptures. The above statements, to say nothing 

1 See note B at the end of this chapter. 



of the fact that the character, office, opinions, 
and writings of Moses were known to many of 
the ancient philosophers and historians, who 
mention him by name, and describe the religion 
of the Jews, are sufficient to account for those 
opinions and traditions we occasionally meet 
with in the writings of the Greek and Roman 
sages which have the greatest correspondence 
with truth, and agree best with the Holy Scrip- 
tures. They flowed in upon them from many 
channels, branching out at different times from 
the fountain of truth ; but they were received 
by them generally as mere traditions or philo- 
sophic notions, which they thought themselves at 
liberty to adopt, reject, modify, or pervert, as 
the principles of their schools or their own fancy 
led them. 

Let then every question which respects inspi- 
ration, miracles, prophecies, be for the present 
omitted : the following conclusions may properly 
close these observations : — 

1. That as a history of early opinions and 
events, the Scriptures have at least as much 
authority as any history of ancient times what- 
ever: nay, the very idea of their sacredness, 
whether well founded or not, renders their histo- 
rical details more worthy of credit, because that 
idea led to their more careful preservation. 

2. That their history is often confirmed by 
ancient pagan traditions and histories ; and in 
no material point, or on any good evidence, con- 
tradicted. 

3. That those fundamental principles of what 
is called natural religion, which are held by sober 
Theists, and by them denominated rational, the 
discovery of which they attribute to the unas- 
sisted understanding of man, are to be found in 
the earliest of these sacred writings, and are 
there supposed to have existed in the world pre- 
vious to the date of those writings themselves. 

4. That a religion founded on common notions 
and common traditions, comprehensive both in 
doctrines and morals, existed in very early 
periods of the world ; and that from the agree- 
ment of almost all mythological systems, in 
certain doctrines, rites, and traditions, it is 
reasonable to believe that this primitive theology 
passed in some degree into all nations. 

5. That it was retained most perfectly among 
those of the descendants of Abraham who formed 
the Israelitish state, and subsisted as a nation 
collaterally with the successive great empires of 
antiquity for many ages. 

6. That the frequent dispersions of great 
numbers of that people, either by war or from 
choice, and their residence in or near the seats 
of ancient learning with their sacred books, and 
in the habit of observing their public worship, 



CH. V.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



25 



as in Chaldea, Egypt, Persia, and other parts of 
the ancient world, and the signal notice into 
which they and their opinions were occasionally 
brought, could not but make their cosmogony, 
theology, laws, and history, very extensively 
known. 

7. That the spirit of inquiry in many of the 
ancient philosophers of different countries, led 
them to travel for information on these very 
subjects, and often into those countries where 
the patriarchal religion had formerly existed in 
great purity, and where the tenets of the Jews, 
which tended to revive or restore it, were well 
known. 

8. That there is sufficient evidence that these 
tenets were in fact known to many of the sages 
of the greatest name, and to schools of the 
greatest influence, who, however, regarding them 
only as traditions or philosophical opinions, 
interwove such of them as best agreed with their 
views into their own systems, and rejected or 
refined upon others, so that no permanent and 
convincing system of morals and religion was, 
after all, wrought out among themselves, while 
they left the populace generally to the gross 
ignorance and idolatry in which they were 
involved. 1 

9. Finally, that so far from there being any 
evidence that any of those fundamental truths 
of religion or morals, which may occasionally 
appear in their writings, were discovered by their 
unassisted reason, we can trace them to an earlier 
age, and can show that they had the means of 
access to higher sources of information ; while, 
on the other hand, it may be exhibited as a proof 
of the weakness of the human mind, and the 
corruptness of the human heart, that they gene- 
rally involved in doubt the great principles 
which they thus received : built upon them fan- 
ciful systems destructive of their moral efficacy ; 



1 The readiness of the philosophers of antiquity to seize 
upon every notion which could aid them in their specula- 
tions, is manifest by the use which those of them who lived 
when Christianity began to be known, and to acquire 
ci-edit, made of its discoveries to give greater splendor to 
their own systems. The thirst of knowledge carried the 
ancient sages to the most distant persons and places in 
search of wisdom, nor did the later philosophers any more 
than modern infidels neglect the superior light of Chris- 
tianity, when brought to their own doors, but they were 
equally backward to acknowledge the obligation. "As the 
ancients" says Justin Martyr, "had borrowed from the 
prophets, so did the moderns from the Gospel." Tertullian 
observes in his Apology, "Which of your poets, xvhich of your 
sophists, have not drunk from the fountains of the. prophets? 
It is from these sacred sources likewise that your imilosophers 
have refreshed their thirsty spirits ; and if they found any 
thin// in. the Holy Scriptures to please their fancy, or to serve 
their hypotheses, they turned it to their own purpose, and made 
it serve their curiosity : not considering these writings to he 
sacred and unalterable, nor understanding their sense: every 



and mixed them with errors of the most deteri- 
orating character. 2 

The last observation will be more fully illus- 
trated in the ensuing chapter. 



Note A. 

The illustration of the particulars mentioned in the 
paragraph from which reference is made to this note, may 
be given under different heads. 

The Formation of the World from Chaotic Matter. — 
Some remains of the sentiments of the ancient Chaldeans 
are preserved in the pages of Syncellus, from Berosus and 
Alexander Polyhistor ; and when the tradition is divested 
of its fabulous dress, we may trace in the account a primor- 
dial watery chaos, a separation of the darkness from light, 
and of earth from heaven, the production of man from the 
dust of the earth, and an infusion of Divine reason into 
the man so formed. The cosmogony of the Phenicians, as 
detailed by Sanchoniatho, makes the principle of the uni- 
verse a dark air and a turbulent chaos. The ancient 
Persians taught that God created the world at six different 
times, in manifest allusion to the six days' work as described 
by Moses. In the Institutes of Menu, a Hindoo tract, sup- 
posed by Sir William Jones to have been composed 1280 
years before the Christian era, the universe is represented 
as involved in darkness, when the sole, self-existing power, 
himself undiscerned, made the world discernible. With a 
thought he first created the waters, which are called Nara, 
or the Spirit of God ; and since they were his first ayana, 
or place of motion, he is thence named Narayana, or .moving 
on the waters. The order of the creation in the ancient 
traditions of the Chinese is, — the heavens were first formed : 
the foundations of the earth were next laid : the atmosphere 
was then diffused round the habitable globe ; and last of all, 
man was created. The formation of the world from chaos 
may be discovered in the traditions of our Gothic ancestors. 
— See the Edda, and Paber's Horoz Mosaics, vol. i., page 3. 

In the ancient Greek philosophy we trace the same tradi- 
tion, and Plato clearly borrowed the materials of his account 
of the origin of things, either from Moses, or from traditions 
which had proceeded from the same source. Moses speaks of 
God in the plural form, "In the beginning Gods created the hea- 
ven and the earth" and Plato has a kind of trinity in his TO 
uyadbv, " the good," vovg, or " intellect," who was properly 
the demiurgus, or former of the world, and his Psyche, or 
universal mundane soul, the cause of all the motion which 

one talcing or leaving, adopting or remodelling, as his imagi- 
nation led 1dm. Nor do I wonder that the philosophers played 
such foul tricks with the Old Testament, when I find some of 
the same generation among ourselves who have made as bold 
with the New, and composed a deadly mixture of Gospel and 
opinion, ltd by a philosop>hizing vanity." 

It was from conversing with a Christian that Epictetus 
learned to reform the doctrine and abase the pride of the 
Stoics ; nor is it to bo imagined that Marcus Antoninus, 
Maximus Tyrius, and others, were ignorant of the Christian 
doctrine. 

Rousseau admits that the modern philosopher derives his 
better notions on many subjects from those very Scriptures 
which ho reviles: from the early impressions of education : 
from living and conversing in a Christian country, where 
those doctrines are publicly taught, and where. In spite of 

himself, he imbihes some port ion o\' that religions know- 
ledge which the Sacred writings have everywhere diffused. 

{Works, vol. be., p. 71: L764.) 

2 See note C at the end of this chapter. 



26 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



is in the world. He also represents the first matter out of 
■which the universe was formed, as a rude chaos. In the 
Greek and Latin poets we have frequent allusions to the 
same fact, and in some of them highly poetic descriptions 
of the chaotic state of the world, and its reduction to order. 
When America was discovered, traditions, bearing a very 
remarkable resemblance to the history of Moses on various 
subjects, were found among the semi-civilized nations of 
that continent. Gomara states in his history, that the 
Peruvians believed that, at the beginning of the world, 
there came from the north a being named Con, who levelled 
mountains and raised hills solely by the word of his 
mouth : that he filled the earth with men and women whom 
he had created, giving them fruits and bread, and all things 
necessary for their subsistence; but that, being offended 
with their transgressions, he deprived them of the blessings 
which they had originally enjoyed, and afflicted their lands 
with sterility. 

"The number of days employed in the work of creation," 
says Mr. Faber, " and the Divine rest on the seventh day, 
produced that peculiar measure of time, the week, which 
is purely arbitrary, and which does not spring, like a day, 
or a month, or a year, from the natural motions of the 
heavenly bodies. Hence the general adoption of the heb- 
domadal period is itself a proof how widely a knowledge 
of the true cosmogonical system was diffused among the 
posterity of Xoah." Thus, in almost every part of the 
globe, from Europe to the shores of India, and anciently 
among the Greeks, Romans, and Goths, as well as among 
the Jews, we find the week used as a familiar measure of 
time, and some traces of the Sabbath. 

The Fall of Max. — That the human race were once inno- 
cent and happy, is an opinion of high antiquity, and great 
extent among the Gentile nations. The passages to this 
effect in the classical poets are well known. It is asserted 
in the Edda, the record of the opinions of our Scythian 
forefathers. " There can be little doubt," says Maurice, in 
his History of Hindostan, " but that by the Satya-age, or 
age of perfection, the Brachmins obscurely allude to the 
state of perfection and happiness enjoyed by man in para- 
dise. Then justice, truth, philanthropy-, were practiced 
among all the orders and classes of mankind." That man 
is a fallen creature, is now the universal belief of this class 
of pagans ; and the degeneracy of the human soul, its native 
and hereditary degeneracy, runs through much of the Greek 
philosophy. The immediate occasion of the fall, the frailty 
of the woman, we find also alluded to equally in classical 
fable, in ancient Gothic traditions, and among various 
barbarous tribes. A curious passage to this effect occurs in 
Campbell's Travels among the Boschuana Hottentots. 

The Serpent. — The agency of an evil and malignant 
spirit is found also in these widely extended ancient tra- 
ditions. Little doubt can be entertained that the gene- 
rally received notion of good and evil demons grounded 
itself upon the Scripture account of good and evil angels. 
Serpent-worship was exceedingly general, especially in 
Egypt and the east, and this is not to be accounted for but 
as it originated from a superstitious fear of the malignant 
demon who, under that animal form, brought death into 
the world, and obtained a destructive dominion over 
men. 

That in ancient sculptures and paintings the serpent 
symbol is sometimes emblematical of wisdom, eternity, and 
other moral ideas, may be allowed; but it often appears 
connected with representations which prove that under 
this form the evil principle was worshipped, and that 
human sacrifices were offered to gratify the cruelty of him 
who was a " murderer from the beginning." In the model 
of the tomb of Psammis, made by Mr.Belzoni, and recently 
exhibited in London, and in the plates which accompany 
his work on Egypt, are seen various representations of 
monstrous serpents with the tribute of human heads which 
had been offered to them. This is still more strikingly 



I exemplified in a copy of part of the interior of an Egyptian 
tomb, at Biban al Mtlodk, in Richardson's Travels in Egypt. 
Before an enormous serpent three men are represented on 
their knees, with their heads just struck off by the execu- 
tioner, " while the serpent erects his crest to a level with 
their throats, ready to drink the stream of life as it gurgles 
from their veins." This was probably the serpent Typhon 
of the ancient Egyptians : the same as the Python of the 
Greeks : and, as observed by Mr. Faber, " the notion that 
the Python was oracular, may have sprung from a recollec- 
J tion of the vocal responses which the tempter gave to Eve, 
| under the borrowed figure of that reptile." By consulting 
| Moore's Hindu Pantheon, it will be seen that the serpent 
Caliya is represented as the decided enemy of the mediato- 
rial God, Krishna, whom he persecutes, and on whom he 
inflicts various sufferings, though he is at length van- 
quished. Krishna, pressed within the folds of the serpent, 
and then triumphing over him in bruising his head beneath 
his feet, is the subject of a very ancient Hindoo bas-relief, 
and carries with it its own interpretation. 

In the Edda, Fab. 16, " the great serpent is said to be 
an emanation from Lolce, the evil principle ; and hela, or 
hell or death, in a poetical vein of allegory not unworthy 
of our own Milton, is celebrated as the daughter of that 
personage, and as the sister of the dragon. Indignant at 
the pertinacious rebellion of the evil principle, the uni- 
versal father dispatched certain of the gods to bring those 
children to him. When they were come, he threw the ser- 
pent down to the bottom of the ocean. But there the 
monster grew so large, that he wound himself round the 
whole globe of the earth. Death meanwhile was precipi- 
tated into hell, where she possesses vast apartments, 
strongly built, and fenced with grates of iron. Her hall 
is grief; her table, famine ; hunger, her knife; delay, her 
servant ; faintness, her porch ; sideness and pain, her bed ; 
and her tent, cursing and hoivling." 

The Flood of Xoah. — Josephus, in his first book against 
Apion, states that Berosus the Chaldean historian relates, 
in a similar manner to Moses, the history of the flood, and 
the preservation of Xoah in an ark or chest. In Abyde- 
mis's History of Assyria, in passages quoted by Eusebius, 
mention is made of an ancient prince of the name of Sisi- 
thrus, who was forewarned by Saturn of a deluge. In this 
account, the ship, the sending forth and returning of the 
birds, the abating of the waters, and the resting of the 
ship on a mountain, are all mentioned. (Euseb. Prsep. 
Evang. lib. 9, c. 12.— Grotius on the Christian Religion, 
lib. 1, sec. 16.) Lucian, in his book concerning the goddess 
of Syria, mentions the Syrian traditions as to this event. 
Here Xoah is called Deucalion, and that he was the person 
intended under this name is rendered indubitable by the 
mention of the wickedness of the antediluvians, the piety 
of Deucalion, the ark, and the bringing into it of the 
beasts of the earth by pairs. The ancient Persian tradi- 
tions, as Dr. Hyde has shown, though mixed with fable, 
have a substantial agreement with the Mosaic account. In 
Hindostan, the ancient.poem of Bhagavot treats of a flood 
which destroyed all mankind, except a pious prince, with 
seven of his attendants and their wives. The Chinese 
writers in like manner make mention of a universal flood. 
In the legends of the ancient Egyptians, Goths, and Druids, 
striking references are made to the same event; (Edda, 
Fab. 4; Davies's Mythology of the British Druids, p. 226;) 
and it was found represented in the historical paintings 
of the Mexicans, and among the American nations. The 
natives of Otaheite believed that the world was torn in 
pieces formerly by the anger of their gods : the inhabit- 
ants of the Sandwich Islands have a tradition that the 
Etooa, who created the world, afterwards destroyed it by 
an inundation; and recollections of the same event are 
preserved among the New Zealanders, as the author had 
the opportunity of ascertaining lately in a conversation 
■with two of their chiefs through an interpreter. For 



CH. V.] 



EVIDENCES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



27 



large illustrations of this point, see Bryant's Heathen My- 
thology, and Faker's Horai Mosaics. 

Sacrifice. — The great principle of the three dispensa- 
tions of religion in the Scriptures — the Patriarchal, the 
Mosaic, and the Christian — that without shedding of blood 
there is no remission, has fixed itself in every pagan religion 
of ancient and modern times. For though the followers 
of Budhu are forbidden to offer sanguinary sacrifices to 
him, they offer them to demons in order to avert various 
evils; and their presentation of flowers and fruits to 
Budhu himself, shows that one part of the original rite 
of sacrifice has been retained, though the other, through a 
philosophic refinement, is given up. Sacrifices are, how- 
ever, offered in China, where the most ancient form of 
Budhuism generally prevails — a presumption that the 
Budhuism of Ceylon, and some parts of India, is a refine- 
ment upon a more ancient system. "That the practice 
of devoting piacular victims has, at one period or another, 
prevailed in every quarter of the globe, and that it has 
been alike adopted by the most barbarous and by the most 
civilized nations, can scarcely be said to need regular and 
formal proof." 

Expectation- op a Deliverer. — Amidst the miseries of 
succeeding ages, the ancient pagan world was always look- 
ing forward to the appearance of a great Deliverer and 
Restorer ; and this expectation was so general, that it is 
impossible to account for it but from " the promises made 
unto the fathers," beginning with the promise of conquest 
to the seed of the woman over the power of the serpent. 
It is a singular fact, and still worthy of remark, though 
so often stated, that, a little before our Lord's advent, an 
expectation of the speedy appearance of this Deliverer was 
general among the nations of antiquity. " The fact," say3 
Bishop Horsley, " is so notorious to all who have any know- 
ledge of antiquity, that if any one would deny it, I would 
decline all dispute with such an adversary, as too ignorant 
to receive conviction, or too disingenuous to acknowledge 
what he must secretly admit." It is another singular fact, 
that Virgil, in his Pollio, by an application of the Sybilline 
verses, which are almost literally in the high and glowing 
strains in which Isaiah prophesies of Christ, to a child of 
his friend, one of the Roman consuls, whose birth was just 
expected, and that out of an extravagant flattery, should 
call the attention of the world to those singular and mys- 
terious books, so shortly before the birth of him who alone 
could fulfil the prophecies they contain. For a further ac- 
count of the Sybilline verses, the reader is referred to Pri- 
deaux's Connection, to Bishop Lowth's Dissertations, and 
to Bishop Horsley's Dissertation on the Prophecies of the 
Messiah, dispersed among the heathen. It is enough hero 
to say, that it is a historical fact that the Sybilline books 
existed among the Romans from an early period: that 
these oracles of the Cumaean Sybil were held in such vene- 
ration, that the book which contained them was deposited 
in a stone chest in the temple of Jupiter, in the capitol, 
and committed to the care of two persons appointed to that 
office expressly : that about a century before our Saviour's 
birth, tho book was destroyed in the fire which consumed 
the temple in which it was deposited: that tho Roman 
Senate knew that similar oracles existed among other na- 
tions, for, to repair that loss, they sent persons to make a 
new collection of these oracles, in different parts of Asia, 
in the islands of tho Archipelago, in Africa, and in Sicily, 
who returned with about a thousand verses, which wero 
deposited in the place of the originals, and kept with tho 
eanio care; and that tho predictions which Virgil weaves 
into his fourth Eclogue, of the appearance of a king whoso 
monarchy was to be universal, and who was to bestow upon 
mankind tho blessings ho describes, wero contained In 
them. It follows, therefore, that such pre£iotlona existed 
anciently among the Romans, that they wero found in 
many other parts of Europe, and Asia, and Africa, and 
that they had so marvellous an agreement with tho pro- 



dictions of tho Jewish prophets, that either they were in 
part copies from them, or predictions of an inspiration 
equally sacred — the fragments of very ancient prophecy 
interwoven probably with the fables of later times. " If," 
as Bishop Ilorsley justly observes, "any illiterate persons 
were to hear Virgil's poem read, with the omission of a 
few allusions to the heathen mythology, which would not 
affect the general sense of it, he would without hesitation 
pronounce it to be a prophecy of the Messiah." It might 
seem indeed that the poet had only in many passages 
translated Isaiah, did he not expressly attribute the pre- 
dictions he has introduced into his poem to the Cumeean 
Sybil ; which he would not have done if such passages had 
not been found in the oracles, because they were then in 
existence, and their contents were known to many. The 
subsequent forgeries of these oracles in the first ages of 
the Church, also, prove at least this, that the true Sybilline 
verses contained prophetic passages capable of a strong 
application to the true universal Delivorer, which those 
pious frauds aimed at making more particular and more 
convincing. Those who do not read Latin may consult 
" The Messiah" of Pope, with the principal passages from 
Virgil in the notes, translated and collated with prophecies 
from Isaiah, which will put them in possession of the sub- 
stance of this singular and most interesting production. 

Nor is it only on the above points that we perceive the 
ancient traditions and opinions preserved in their grand 
outline among different heathen nations, but also in the 
scriptural doctrine of the destruction of the present system 
of material nature. The Pythagoreans, Platonists, Epi- 
cureans, Stoics, all had notions of a general conflagration. 
After the doctrine of the Stoics, Ovid thus speaks, Metam. 
lib.l:— 

" Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur affore tempus 
Quo mare, quo tellus, corruptaque regio cceli 
Ardeat, et mundi moles operosa laboret." 

Rememb'ring in the fates a time when fire 
Should to the battlements of heaven aspire, 
"When all his blazing worlds above should burn, 
And all th' inferior globe to cinders turn. 

Drtden. 

Seneca, speaking of tho same event, ad Merciam c. ult., 
says, "Tempus adveniret quo sidera sideribus incurrent, etc. 
The time will come when the whole world will be con- 
sumed, that it may be again renewed, when the powers of 
nature will be turned against herself, when stars will rush 
on stars, and the whole material world, which now appears 
so resplendent with beauty and harmony, will be destroyed 
in one general conflagration. In this grand catastrophe 
of nature, all animated beings, (excepting the universal 
intelligence,) men, heroes, demons, and gods, shall perish 
together." 

The same tradition presents itself in different forms in 
all leading systems of modern paganism. 



Note B. 

Of the controversy as to Zoroaster, Zeratmht, or Zcrtmhta, 
and the sacred books said to havo boon written by him, 
called Zend, or Zendavesta, which has divided critics so 
eminent, it would answer no important end to give an ab- 
stract. Those who wish for information on the subject are 
referred to Hyde's Jicligio Vckrum Pcrsaruw : l'lunrux's 
Connection; Warburton's Divine Ligation; V,r,\\\\'s My- 
thology ; The Universal History ; Sir W. JOHHS'S Works, vol. 
iii. p. 115; M. Du Perron, and RlOHAHDSOK's Dissertation 
prefixed to bis Persian and Arabic Dictionary. But what- 
ever may become of tho authority of the whole or part of 
the Zendavesta, and with whatever tables (he History of the 
Roformor of tho Magian religion may be mixed, the learned 



28 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



are generally agreed that such a reformation took place by 
his instrumentality. " Zeratusht," says Sir "W. Jones, " re- 
formed the old religion by the addition of genii or angels, 
of new ceremonies in the veneration shewn to fire, of a 
new work which he pretended to have received from 
heaven, and, above all, by establishing the actual adoration 
of the Supreme Being;" and he further adds, " The reformed 
religion of Persia continued in force till that country was 
conquered by the Mussulmans ; and, without studying the 
Zend, we have ample information concerning it in the 
modern Persian writings of several who profess it. Bahman 
always named Zeratusht with reverence : he was in truth 
a pure Theist, and strongly disclaimed any adoration of the 
fire or other elements, and he denied that the doctrine of 
two coeval principles, supremely good and supremely bad, 
formed any part of his faith." " The Zeratusht of Persia, 
or the Zoroaster of the Greeks," says Kichardson, "was 
highly celebrated by the most discerning people of ancient 
times ; and his tenets, we are told, were most eagerly and 
rapidly embraced by the highest in rank, and the wisest 
men in the Persian empire." — Dissertation prefixed to his 
Persian Dictionary. He distinguished himself by denying 
that good and evil, represented by light and darkness, were 
coeval, independent principles, and asserted the supremacy 
of the true God, and exact conformity with the doctrine 
contained in a part of that celebrated prophecy of Isaiah, 
in which Ctrus is mentioned by name. "lam the Lord, 
and there is none else, there is no God beside me," no coeval 
power. "I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, 
or good, and create evil : I the Lord do all these things." Fire 
by Zertushta appears to have been used emblematically 
only, and the ceremonies for preserving and transmitting 
it, introduced by him, were manifestly taken from the 
Jews, and the sacred fire of their tabernacle and temple. 

The old religion of the Persians was corrupted by Sabi- 
anism, or the worship of the host of heaven, with its ac- 
companying superstition. The Magian doctrine, whatever 
it might be at first, had degenerated, and two eternal prin- 
ciples, good and evil, had been introduced. It was there- 
fore necessarily idolatrous also, and, like all other false 
systems, flattering to the vicious habits of the people. So 
great an improvement in the moral character and influence 
of the religion of a whole nation as was effected by Zoroas- 
ter, a change which is not certainly paralleled in the his- 
tory of the religion of mankind, can scarcely therefore be 
thought possible, except we suppose a Divine interposition, 
either directly, or by the occurrence of some very impress- 
ive events. Now, as there are so many authorities for fix- 
ing the time of Zoroaster or Zeratusht not many years 
subsequent to the death of the great Cyrus, the events to 
which we have referred in the text are those, and indeed 
the only ones, which will account for his success in that 
reformation of religion of which he was the author ; for 
had not the minds of men been prepared for this change 
by something extraordinary, it is not supposable that they 
would have adopted a purer faith from him. That he gave 
them a better doctrine is clear from the admissions of even 
Dean Prideaux, who has very unjustly branded him as an 
impostor. Let it then be remembered, that as '•' the Most 
High ruleth in the kingdoms of men," he often overrules 
great political events for moral purposes. The Jews were 
sent into captivity to Babylon to be reformed from their 
idolatrous propensities, and their reformation commenced 
with their calamity. A miracle was there wrought in fa- 
vor of the three Hebrews, confessors of one only God, and 
that under circumstances to put shame upon a popular idol 
in the presence of the king, and " all the rulers of the pro- 
vinces," that the issue of this controversy between Jehovah 
and idolatry might be made known throughout that vast 
empire. Worship was refused to the idol by a few Hebrew 
captives, and the idol had no power to punish the public 
affront. The servants of Jehovah were cast into a furnace, 
and he delivered them unhurt; and a royal decree declared 



"that there was no god who could deliver after this sort." 
The proud monarch himself is smitten with a singular 
disease: he remains subject to it until he acknowledges 
the true God; and, upon his recovery, he publicly ascribes 
to Him both the justice and the mercy of the punishment. 
This event takes place also in the accomplishment of a 
dream which none of the wise men of Babylon could in- 
terpret : it was interpreted by Daniel, who made the fulfil- 
ment to redound to the honor of the true God, by ascribing 
to him the perfection of knowing the future, which none 
of the false gods, appealed to by the Chaldean sages, pos- 
sessed — as the inability of their servants to interpret the 
dream sufficiently proved. After these singidar events, 
Cyrus takes Babylon, and he finds there the sage and the 
statesman, Daniel, the worshipper of the God " who creates 
both good and evil," " who makes the light and forms the 
darkness." There is moral certainty that he and the prin- 
cipal Persians throughout the empire would have the pro- 
phecy of Isaiah respecting Cyrus, delivered more than a 
hundred years before he was born, and in which his name 
stood recorded, along with the predicted circumstances 
of the caption of Babylon, pointed out to them, as every 
reason, religious and political, urged the Jews to make the 
prediction a matter of notoriety; and from Cyrus's decree 
in Ezra, it is certain that he was acquainted with it, be- 
cause there is in the decree an obvious reference to the 
prophecy. This prophecy so strangely fulfilled would give 
mighty force to the doctrine connected with it, and which 
it proclaims with so much majesty. 

" I am Jehovah, and none else, 
Forming light, and creating darkness, 
Making peace, and creating evil : 
I Jehovah am the author of all these things." 
Lowth's Translation. 

Here the great principle of corrupted Magianism was 
directly attacked; and in proportion as the fulfilment of 
the prophecy was felt to be singular and striking, the doc- 
trine blended with it would attract notice. Its force was 
both felt and acknowledged, as we have seen in the decree 
of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the temple. In that Ctrtts 
acknowledged the true God to be supreme, and thus re- 
nounced his former faith; and the example, the public 
example of a prince so beloved, and whose reign was so 
extended, could not fail to influence the religious opinions 
of his people. That the effect did not terminate in Cyrus 
we know; for from the book of Ezra it appears that both 
Darius and Artaxerxes made decrees in favor of the Jews, 
in which Jehovah has the emphatic appellation repeatedly 
given to him, " the God of heaven ;" the very terms used 
by Cyrus himself. Nor are we to suppose the impression 
confined to the court ; for the history of the three Hebrew 
youths; of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, sickness, and refor- 
mation from idolatry ; of the interpretation of the hand- 
writing on the wall by Daniel, the servant of the living 
God ; of his deliverance from the lions ; and the publicity 
of the prophecy of Isaiah respecting Cyrus, were too 
recent, too public, and too striking in their nature, not to 
be often and largely talked of. Besides, in the prophecy 
respecting Cyrus, the intention of Almighty God in record- 
ing the name of that monarch in an inspired book, and 
showing beforehand that he had chosen him to overturn the 
Babylonian empire, is expressly mentioned as having re- 
spect to two great objects : First, the deliverance of Israel, 
and second, the making known his supreme Divinity among 
the nations of the earth. I again quote Lowth's translation : 

" For the sake of my servant Jacob 
And of Israel my chosen, 
I have even called thee by thy name, 
I have surnamed thee, though thou knowest me not. 
I am Jehovah, and none else, 
Beside me there is no God : 



CH. V.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



29 



I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me, 

That they may know, from the rising of the sun, 

And from the west, that there is none beside me," etc. 

It was therefore intended by this proceeding on the part 
of Providence, to teach not only Cyrus, but the people of 
his vast empire, and surrounding nations : First, That Ho 
was Jehovah, the self-subsistent, the eternal God ; Second, 
That he was God alone, there being no Deity beside him- 
self; and Third, That good and evil, represented by light 
and darkness, were neither independent nor eternal sub- 
sistences, but his great instruments and under his control. 

The Persians, who had so vastly extended their empire 
by the conquest of the countries formerly held by the 
monarchs of Babylon, were thus prepared for such a refor- 
mation of their religion as Zoroaster effected. The princi- 
ples he advocated had been previously adopted by several 
of the Persian monarchs, and probably by many of the 
principal persons of that nation. Zoroaster himself thus 
became acquainted with the great truths contained in this 
famous prophecy, which attacked the very foundations of 
every idolatrous and Manichean system. From the other 
sacred books of the Jews, who mixed with the Persians in 
every part of the empire, he evidently learned more. This 
is sufficiently proved from the many points of similarity 
between his religion and Judaism, though he should not 
be allowed to speak so much in the style of the Holy 
Scriptures as some passages in the Zendavesta would indi- 
cate. He found the people, however, "prepared of the 
Lord" to admit his reformations, and he carried them. I 
cannot but look upon this as one instance of several merci- 
ful dispensations of God to the Gentile world, through his 
own peculiar people the Jews, by which the idolatries of 
the heathen were often checked, and the light of truth 
rekindled among them. In this view the ancient Jews 
evidently considered the Jewish Church as appointed not 
to preserve only but to extend true religion. "God be merci- 
ful to us and bless us, that thy ways may be known upon 
earth, thy saving health unto all nations.'" This renders 
pagan nations more evidently " without excuse." That this 
dispensation of mercy was afterwards neglected among the 
Persians is certain. How long the effect continued we 
know not, nor how widely it spread; perhaps longer and 
wider than may now distinctly appear. If the Magi, who 
came from the east to see Christ, were Persians, some 
true worshippers of God would appear to have remained 
in Persia to that day ; and if, as is probable, the prophecies 
of Isaiah and Daniel were retained among them, they 
might be among those who "waited for redemption," not 
at Jerusalem, but in a distant part of the world. The 
Par sees, who were nearly extirpated by Mohammedan 
fanaticism, were charged by their oppressors with the 
idolatry of fire, and this was probably true of the multi- 
tude. Some of their writers, however, warmly defended 
themselves against the charge. A considerable number of 
them remain in India to this day, and profess to have the 
books of Zoroaster. 

This note contains a considerable digression, but its con- 
nection with the argument in the text is obvious. He who 
rejects the authority of the Scriptures will not be influ- 
enced by what has been said of tho prophecies of Isaiah, 
or tho events of the life of Daniel ; but still it is not to be 
denied that, while the Persian empire remained, a Persian 
moral philosopher who taught sublime doctrines flourished, 
and that his opinions had great influence. Tho connection 
of the Jews and Persians is an undeniablo matter of his- 
toric fact. Tho tenets ascribed to Zoroaster boar the marks 
of Jewish origin, because they are mingled with some of 
the peculiar rites and circumstances of the Jewish temple. 
From this source tho theology of tho Persians received 
improvements in correct and influential notions of Doity 
especially, and was enriched with tho history and doctrines 
of the Mosaic records. Tho affairs of the Greeks wero so 



interwoven with those of the Persians, that the sages of 
Greece could not be ignorant of the opinions of Zertushta, 
known to them by the name of Zoroaster, and from this 
school some of their best notions were derived. 



Note C. 

The greatest corruptions of religion are to be traced to 
superstition, and to that vain and bewildering habit of 
philosophizing, which obtained among the ancients. Supor- 
stition was the besetting sin of the ignorant, vain specula- 
tion of the intelligent. Both sprang from the vicious state 
of the heart : the expression was different, but the effect 
the same. The evil probably arose in Egypt, and was 
largely improved upon by the philosophers of Greece and 
India. Systems, hypotheses, cosmogonies, etc., are all the 
work of philosophy ; and the most subtle and bewildering 
errors, such as the eternity of matter, the metempsychosis, 
the absorption of the human soul at death, etc., have 
sprung from them. Ancient wisdom, both religious and 
moral, was contained in great principles, expressed in 
maxims without affectation of systematic relation and 
arrangement, and without any deep research into reasons 
and causes. The moment philosophy attempted this, the 
weakness and waywardness of the human mind began to 
display themselves. Theories sprang up in succession; 
and confusion and contradiction at length produced skepti- 
cism in all, and in many matured it into total unbelief. 
The speculative habit affected at once the opinions of an- 
cient Africa and Asia; and in India, the philosophy of 
Egypt and Greece remains to this day, ripened into its full 
bearing of deleterious fruit. 

The similarity of the Greek and modern Asiatic systems 
is indeed a very curious subject; for in the latter is ex- 
hibited at this day the philosophy of paganism, while in 
other places false religion is seen only or chiefly in its 
simple form of superstition. The coincidence of the Hin- 
doo and Greek mythology has been traced by Sir W. Jones ; 
and his opinions on this subject are strongly confirmed by 
the still more striking coincidence in the doctrines of the 
Hindoo and Grecian philosophical sects. "The period," 
says Mr. Ward, {View of the, History of the Hindoos, etc.,) 
" when the most eminent of the Hindoo philosophers flour- 
ished, is still involved in much obscurity ; but the apparent 
agreement in many striking particulars between the Hin- 
doo and the Greek systems of philosophy, not only suggests 
the idea of some union in their origin, but strongly pleads 
for their belonging to one age, notwithstanding the un- 
fathomable antiquity claimed by the Hindoos; and after 
the reader shall have compared the two systems, the author 
is persuaded he will not consider the conjecturo as impro- 
bable, that Pythagoras and others did really visit India, or 
that Goutumu and Pythagoras were cotemporaries, or 
nearly so." — Vol. 4. 

" Many of the subjects discussed among the Hindoos wero 
the very subjects which excited tho disputes in the Greek 
academies — such as tho eternity of matter, tho first cause, 
God the soul of the world, tho doctrine of atoms, creation, 
the nature of tho gods, tho doctrines of fate, transmigra- 
tion, successive revolutions of worlds, absorption into the 
Divine Being," etc. — Ibid, p. 115. 

Mr. Ward enters at largo into this coincidence in his 
introductory remarks to his fourth volume, to which the 
roader is referred. It shall only be observed, that those 
speculations and subtle arguments just mentioned, both 
in the Greek and Asiatic branches of pagan philosophy, 
gave birth to absolute Atheism. Several o[' the Crook phi- 
losophic sects, as is well known, were professedly atheistic 
Cudworth enumerates four forms assumed by this Bpeciea 
of unbolicf. The same principles which distinguish their 
socts may bo traced in several of those of the Hindoos, and 



30 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



above all the atheistical system of Budhoo, branched off from 
the vain philosophy of the Brachmiiiieal schools, and which 
has extended farther than Hindooisra itself. The reason 
of all this is tmly given by Bishop Warburton, as to the 
Greeks, and it is equally applicable to the Asiatic philoso- 
phy of tho present day, -which is so clearly one and the 
same, and also to many errors -which have crept into the 
Chnrch of Christ itself. « The philosophy of the Greeks," 
he observes, led to unbelief, "because it was above measure 
refined and speculative, and used to be determined by 
metaphysical rather than by moral principles, and to stick 
to all consequences, how absurd soever, that were seen to 
arise from such principles." 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE NECESSITY OF REVELATION — STATE OF RELI- 
GIOUS KNOWLEDGE AMONG THE HEATHEN. 

Several presumptive arguments have been 
offered in favor of the opinion that Almighty 
God, in his goodness, has made an express reve- 
lation of his will to mankind. They have been 
drawn from the fact that we are moral agents, j 
and therefore under a law or rule of conduct — 
from the consideration that no law can be bind- , 
ing till made known, or at least rendered cogni- 
sable by those whom it is intended to govern — 
from the inability of the generality of men to 
collect any adequate information on moral and 
religious subjects by processes of induction — from j 
the insufficiency of reason, even in the wisest, to 
make any satisfactory discovery of the first prin- | 
ciples of religion and duty — from the want of all 
authority and influence in such discoveries, upon j 
the majority of mankind, had a few minds of 
superior order and with more favorable opportu- 
nities been capable of making them — from the 
fact that no such discovery was ever made by the 
wisest of the ancient sages, inasmuch as the 
truths they held were in existence before their 
day, even in the earliest periods of the patri- 
archal ages — and from the fact, that whatever 
truths they collected from early tradition, or 
from the descendants of Abraham, mediately or 
immediately, they so corrupted under the pre- 
tence of improving them, 1 as to destroy their 
harmony and moral influence, thereby greatly 
weakening the probability that moral truth was 
ever an object of the steady and sincere pursuit 
of men. To these presumptions in favor of an 
express revelation, written, preserved xcith care, and 
appointed to be preached and published under the 



1 Plato, in his Epinominis, acknowledges that the Greeks 
learned many things from the barbarians, though he 
asserts that they improved what they thus borrowed, and 
made it better, especially in what related to the worship of 
the gods.— Plat. Oper. p. 703, Edit. Ficin. Lugd. 1590. 



[PART I. 

authority of its author, for the benefit of all, wise 
or unwise, we may add the powerful presumption 
which is afforded by the necessity of the case. 
This necessity of a revelation is to be collected, 
not only from what has been advanced, but from 
the state of moral and religious knowledge and 
practice in those countries where the records 
which profess to contain the Mosaic and the 
Christian revelations have been or are still un- 
known. 

The necessity of immediate Divine instruction 
was acknowledged by many of the wisest and 
most inquiring of the heathen, under the con- 
viction of the entire inability of man unassisted 
by God to discover truth with certainty, — so 
greatly had the primitive traditional revelations 
been obscured by errors before the times of the 
most ancient of those sages among the heathen, 
whose writings have in whole or in part been 
transmitted to us, and so little confidence had 
they in themselves to separate truth from error, 
or to say, " This is true and that false." And 
as the necessity of an express and authenticated 
revelation was acknowledged, so it was publicly 
exhibited, because, on the very first principles 
of religion and morals, there was either entire 
ignorance, or no settled and consonant opinions, 
even among the wisest of mankind themselves. 2 

2 Plato, beginning his discourse of the gods and the 
generation of the world, cautions his disciples •'■' not to ex- 
pect any thing beyond a lucely conjecture concerning these 
things." Cicero, referring to the same subject, says, 
"Latent ista omnia erassis occulta d circumfusa tenehris — all 
these things are involved in deep obscurity." 

The following passage from the same author may be re- 
commended to the consideration of modern exalters of the 
power of unassisted reason. The treasures of the philoso- 
phy of past ages were poured at his feet, and he had studied 
every branch of human wisdom, with astonishing industry 
and acuteness, yet he observes, Ci Quid si tales nos natura 
genuisset. ut earn ipsam intueri, et perspicere, eademque 
optima duce cursum vita conficere possemus; hand erat 
sane quod quisquam rationem, ac doctrinam requireret. 
Nunc parvulos nobis dedit ignieulos, quos celeriter malis 
moribus, opinionibusque depravati sic restinguimus. ut 
nusquam naturae lumen appareat. If we had come into the 
world in such circumstances as that we could clearly and 
distinctly have discerned nature herself, and have been 
able in the course of our lives to follow her true and un- 
corrupted directions, this alone might have been sufficient, 
and there would have been little need of teaching and 
instruction ; but now nature has given us only some small 
sparks of right reason, which we so quickly extinguish 
with corrupt opinions and evil practices, that the true light 
of nature nowhere appears." — Tusc. Quest. 3. 

The same author, (Tusc. Quest. 1,) having reckoned up 
the opinions of philosophers as to the soul's immortality, 
concludes thus : '• Harum sententiarum qufe vera est Deus 
aliquis viderit, quae verisimillima est. magna quaestio est. 
Which of these opinions is true, some god must tell us : 
which is most like truth, is a great question." Jamblicus, 
speaking of the principles of Divine worship, saith: -It 
is manifest that those things are to be done which are 
pleasing to God ; but what they are, it is not easy to know, 



CH. VI.] 

Some proofs of this have already been adduced; 
but the importance of the subject requires that 
they should be enlarged. 

Though the belief of one Supreme Being has 
been found in many parts of the world, yet 
the notion of subordinate deities, the immediate 
dispensers of good and evil to men, and the 
objects of their fear and worship, has almost 
equally obtained ; and this of necessity destroyed 
or greatly counteracted the moral influence of 
that just opinion. 

"The people generally among the Gentiles," 
says Dr. Tenison, "did rise little higher than 
the objects of sense. They worshipped them 
each as supreme in their kind, or no otherwise 
unequal than the sun, and the moon, or the 
other celestial bodies, by the adoration of which 
the ancient idolaters, as Job intimateth, denied 
(or excluded) the God that is above. Porphyry 
himself, one of the most plausible apologists for 
the religion of the Gentiles, doth own in some 
the most gross and blockish idolatry of mean 
objects. He tells us that it is not a matter of 
which we should be amazed, if most ignorant 
men esteemed wood and stones Divine statues: 
seeing they who are unlearned look upon monu- 
ments which have inscriptions upon them as 
ordinary stones, and regard books as so many 
bundles of paper." — Discourse on Idolatry, p. 50. 

The modern idolatry of Hindostan, which in 
principle differs nothing from that of the an- 
cient world, affords a striking comment upon 
this point, and indeed is of great importance in 
enabling us to conceive justly of the true char- 
acter and practical effects of idolatry in all ages. 
One Supreme Being is acknowledged by the 
Hindoos, but they never worship him, nor 
think that he concerns himself with human affairs 
at all. 

"The Hindoos believe in one God, so com- 
pletely abstracted in his own essence, however, 
that in this state he is emphatically the unknown, 
and is consequently neither the object of hope 
nor of fear : he is even destitute of intelligence, 
and remains in a state of profound repose." — 
Ward's Hindoo Mythology, vol. ii. p. 306. 

"This Being," says Moore, {Hindoo Pantheon, 
p. 132,) "is called Brahm, one eternal mind, 
the self-existing, incomprehensible Spirit. To 
him, however, the Hindoos erect no altars. The 
objects of their adoration commence with the 
triad, Brahma, Vishnu, and Scva, which repre- 
sent the almighty powers of creation, preservation, 
and destruction." 

except a man woro taught thorn by God himself, or by 
aomo person who had recoived them from God, or obtained 
tho knowledge of them by somo Divino moans." — Jamb, in 
Vit. Fythag. c. 28. 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



31 



The learned among the classic heathen, it 
is true, occasionally speak nobly concerning 
God and his attributes ; but at the same time 
they were led by their own imaginations and 
reasonings to conclusions which neutralize the 
effect of their sublimer conceptions, and often 
contradict them. The eternity of matter, for 
instance, was held by the Greek and Roman 
philosophers, and by their preceptors in the 
oriental schools, who thought it absolutely im- 
possible that any thing should be produced from 
nothing — thus destroying the notion of creation 
in its proper sense, and of a Supreme Creator. 
This opinion, as Bishop Stillingfleet shows, 
{Origines Sacrce, 1. iii. c. 2,) is contrary to the 
omnipotence and independence of God, and is a 
great abatement of those correct views which the 
words of the ancient philosophers would seem 
sometimes to express. 1 

It had another injurious effect: it destroyed 
the interesting doctrine of Divine government as 
to those natural evils to which men are subject. 
These they traced to the unchangeable and 
eternal nature of matter, which even the Su- 
preme God could not control. Thus Seneca says, 
[De Provid. cap. 5,) "that evil things happen 
to good men, quia non potest Artifex mutare 
materiam, because God the Artificer could not 
change matter ; and that a magno Artifice multa 
formantur prava, many things were made ill 
by the great Artificer : not that he wanted art, 
but through the stubbornness of matter," in 
which they generally agree. This opinion of 
theirs was brought from the oriental schools, 



1 When we meet with passages in the writings of heathens 
which recommend moral virtues, and speak in a fit and 
becoming manner of God, wo are apt, from our moro 
elevated knowledge of these subjects, to attach moro cor- 
rect and precise ideas to the terms used than the original 
writers themselves, and to give them credit for better 
views than they entertained. It is one proof, that though 
somo of them speak, for instance, of God's seeing and 
knowing all things, they did not conceive of the omni- 
science of God in the manner in which that attribute i3 
explained by those who have learned what God is from his 
own words; that some of the pagan philosophers who 
lived after the Christian era, complain that the Christians 
had introduced a very tnmblesome and busy God, who did 
"in omnium mores, actus, omnium wrlxi deniqye, et cccultas 
cogitationes diligentcr inquircrc, diligently inquire into the 
manners, actions, words, and secret thoughts of all men." 
Cicero, too, denies the foreknowledge of God, and for tho 
same reason which has been urged against it in modem 
times by somo who, for tho time at least, have closed their 
eyes upon the testimony of tho Scriptures on this point] 
and being willing, in order to serve a favorite theory, to go 
back to the obscurity of paganism. The difficulty with 
him is, thoA prescience « inconsistent with oontingt ncy. Mihi 
no in Doum cadero videatur ut Bciat quid C8JBU et fortuito 
futurum sit; si oniin Boit, certe Hind eveniet; si certe 
ovoniet, nulla fortuna est ; est autem t'ortuna. ivrnm ergo 

fortuitarum nulla prteseneto ' '. n. 12, 18. 



32 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



-where it had "been long received. Nor was it 
confined to Egypt and Chaldea. It was one 
of the dogmas which Confucius taught in China 
in the fifth century before Christ, that out of 
nothing that which is cannot he produced, and 
that material bodies must have existed from all 
eternity. From this notion it follows, that there 
is no calamity to which we are not liable, and 
that God himself is unable to protect us from it. 
Prayer is useless, and trust in him is absurd. 
The noble doctrine of the infliction of misery by 
a wise and gracious Being for our correction and 
improvement, so often dwelt upon in Scripture, 
could have no place in a system which ad- 
mitted this tenet: God could neither be "a 
refuge in trouble," nor a Father, "correcting 
us for our profit, that we might be partakers 
of his holiness." What they knew of God was 
therefore, by such speculations, rendered entire- 
ly unprofitable. 

But a worse consequence resulted from this 
opinion. By some of them the necessary obli- 
quity and perverseness of matter was regarded 
not only as the source of natural, but also 
of moral evil : by which they either made sin 
necessary and irresistible, or found in this opinion 
much to palliate it. 

Others refer moral evil to a natural principle 
of evil, an evil god, "emulous of the good 
God," which Plutarch says 1 is a tradition of 
great antiquity, derived "from the divines (e/c 
deoAoyuv) and lawgivers to the poets and philo- 
sophers, whose first author cannot be found." 
But whether natural and moral evil be traced 
to an eternal and uncontrollable matter, or to 
an eternal and independent anti-god, it is clear 
that the notion of a Supreme Deity, as contained 
in the Scriptures, and as conceived of by modern 
Theists, who have borrowed their light from 
them, could have no existence in such systems ; 
and that by making moral evil necessary, men 
were taught to consider it as a misfortune 
rather than a crime, and were thus in fact en- 
couraged to commit it by regarding it as un- 
avoidable. 

In like manner, though occasionally we find 
many excellent things said of the providence 
of God, all these were weakened or destroyed by 
other opinions. The Epicurean sect denied the 
doctrine, and laid it down as a maxim, "that 
what was blessed and immortal gave neither any 
trouble to itself nor to others:" a notion which 
exactly agrees with the system of the modern 



1 De Isid. et Osir.— Dr. Cudworth thinks that Plutarch 
has indulged in an overstrained assertion; hut the con- 
fidence with which the philosopher speaks is at least a 
proof of the great extent of this opinion. 



Hindoos. "According to the doctrine of Aris- 
totle, God resides in the celestial sphere, and 
observes nothing, and cares for nothing be- 
yond himself. Residing in the first sphere, he 
possesses neither immensity nor omnipresence : 
far removed from the inferior parts of the 
universe, he is not even a spectator of what is 
passing among its inhabitants." (Enfield's His- 
tory of Philosophy, lib. ii., cap. 9.) The Stoics 
contended for a providence, but in their creed 
it was counteracted by the doctrine of an abso- 
lute necessity, or fate, to which God and matter, 
or the universe, which consists, as they thought, 
of both, was immutably subject; and where 
they allow it, they confine the care of the gods 
to great affairs only. 

The Platonists, and the followers of Pythago- 
ras, believed that all things happened Kara Oelav 
irpovoiav, according to Divine providence ; but this 
they overthrew by joining fortune with God. 
"God, fortune, and opportunity," says Plato, 
" govern all the affairs of men." — De Leg. lib. 4. 

To them also there were "gods many and lords 
many;'' and wherever Polytheism is admitted, it 
is as destructive of the doctrine of providence 
as fate, though by a different process. The 
fatalist makes all things fixed and certain, and 
thus excludes government : the Polytheist gives 
up the government of the world to innumerable 
opposing and contrary wills, and thus makes 
every thing uncertain. If the favor of one deity 
be propitiated, the wrath of another, equally or 
more powerful, may be provoked; or the gods 
may quarrel among themselves. Such is the 
only providence which can be discovered in the 
Iliad of Homer and the JEneid of Virgil, poems 
which unquestionably embody the popular belief 
of the times in which they were written. The 
same confused and contradictory management 
of the affairs of men we see in all modern idol- 
atrous systems, only that with length of duration 
they appear to have become more oppressive and 
distracting. "Where so many deities are essen- 
tially malignant and cruel to men ; where demons 
are supposed to have power to afflict and to 
destroy at pleasure ; and where aspects of the 
stars, and the screams of birds, and other 
ominous circumstances, are thought to have an 
irresistible influence upon the fortunes of life, 
and the occurrences of every day : and especially 
where, to crown the whole, there is an utter igno- 
rance of one supreme controlling infinite mind, 
or his existence is denied : or he who is capable 
of exercising such a superintendence as might 
render him the object of hope, is supposed to be 
totally unconcerned with human affairs : there 
can be no ground of firm trust, no settled hope, 
no permanent consolation. Timidity and gloom 



CH. VI.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



33 



tenant every bosom, and in many instances 
render life a burden. 1 

Another great principle of religion is the 
doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish- 
ments ; and though in some form it is recognized 
in pagan systems, and the traditions of the 
primitive ages may be traced in their extravagant 
perversions and fables, its evidence "was either 
greatly diminished, or it was mixed up with 
notions entirely subversive of the moral effect 
which it was originally intended to produce. 

Of the ancient Chaldean philosophy, not much 
is known. In its best state it contained many 
of the principles of the patriarchal religion; 
but at length, as we find from Scripture, it 
degenerated into the doctrine of judicial astro- 
logy, which is so nearly allied to fatalism, as»to 
subvert the idea of the present life being a state 
of probation, and the future a state of just and 
gracious rewards and punishments. 

Ancient writers differ as to the opinions of the 
learned of Egypt on the human soul. Diodorus 
Siculus says, they believed its immortality, and 
the future- existence of the just among the gods. 
Herodotus ascribes to them the doctrine of trans- 
migration. Both may be reconciled. The former 
doctrine was the most ancient, the latter was 
induced by that progress of error which we 
observe among all nations. Another subtle 
notion grew up with it, which infected the philo- 
sophy of Greece, and, spreading throughout 
Asia, has done more to destroy the moral effect 
of a belief in the future existence of man than 
any other. This was, " that God is the soul of 
the world," from which all human spirits came, 
and to which they will return, some immediately, 
and others through long courses of transmigra- 
tion. The doctrine of ancient revelation, of 
which this was a subtle and fatal perversion, is 
obvious. The Scripture account is, that the 
human soul was from God by creation : the re- 
finement of pagan philosophy, that it is from 
him by emanation, or separation of essence, and 
still remains a separate portion of God, seeking 
its return to him. With respect to the future, 
revelation always taught that the souls of the 
just return to God at death, not to lose their 
individuality, but to be united to him in holy 



^The testimony of missionaries, who see the actual 
e fleets of Paganism in the different countries where they 
labor, is particularly valuable. On the point mentioned in 
tho text, the Wesleyan missionaries thus speak of the state 
of tho Cingalese: — "We feel ourselves incapable of giving 
you a full view of the deplorable state of a pcoplo who 
believe that all things are governed by chance : who find 
malignant gods, or devils, in every planet, whoso influence 
over mankind they consider to be exceeding great, and 
the agents who inflict all the evil that men suffer in the 
world. A people so circumstanced need no addition to 
3 



and delightful communion : the philosophic per- * 
version was, that the parts so separated from 
God, and connected for a time with matter, would 
be reunited to the great source by refusion, as a 
drop of water to the ocean. 2 Thus philosophy 
refined upon the doctrine of immortality until it 
converted it into annihilation itself, for so it is 
in the most absolute sense as to distinct con- 
sciousness and personality. The prevalence of 
this notion under different modifications is indeed 
very remarkable. 

Bishop Warburton proves that this opinion was 
held not merely by the atheistical and skeptical 
sects among the Greeks, but by what he calls 
the Philosophic Quaternion of dogmatic Theists, 
the four renowned schools, the Pythagoric, the 
Platonic, the Peripatetic, and the Stoic ; and 
on this ground argues, that though they taught 
the doctrine of future rewards and punishments 
to the populace, as a means of securing their 
obedience to the laws, they themselves did not 
believe what they propagated ; and in this he 
was doubtless correct. With future reward and 
punishment, in the proper and commonly re- 
ceived sense in all ages, this notion was entirely 
incompatible. He observes, "And that the 
reader may not suspect these kind of phrases, 
that the soul is part of God, discerpted from him, 
of his nature, which perpetually occur in the 
writings of the ancients, to be only highly 
figurate expressions, and not to be measured by 
the severe standard of metaphysical propriety, 
he is desired to take notice of one consequence 
drawn from this principle, and universally held 
by antiquity, which was this, that the soul was 
eternal a parte ante, as well as a parte post, which 
the Latins well express by the word sempitemus. 
But when the ancients are said to hold the pre 
and post existence of the soul, and therefore to 
attribute a proper eternity to it, we must not 
suppose that they understood it to be eternal in 
its distinct and peculiar existence ; but that it 
was discerpted from the substance of God in 
time, and would in time be rejoined and resolved 
into it again: which they explained by a bottle's 
being filled with sea-water, that swimming there 
awhile, on the bottle's breaking, flowed in again. 
and mingled with the common mass. They only 

their miseries, but arc objects toward ■which Christian pity 
will extend itself as far as the voice of their case can 
reach. They are literally, through fear of death, or malig- 
nant demons, all their lifetime subject to bondage.* 1 

2 "Interim tamen vix ulli (here, (quae humansa mentis 
caligo, atque Imbecillitas est.) qui non inciderint in er ro rem 
ilium de refusiont in Animam mundi, Nimirum, stout 

exist imarunt singulorum aniinas partiOUlAS esse anima< 

mnndanes quarum qutelibet buo corpore, ut aqua vase. 
effluere, ao animta mundi, a qua deducts fuerit, Iterum 

uniri."— G.vsskndi Animndv. in Lib. 10, DiOQ, Latrtii.p. 550. 



34 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



differed about the time of this reunion and reso- 
lution, the greater part holding it to be at death ; 
but the Pythagoreans not till after many trans- 
migrations. The Platonists went between these 
two opinions, and rejoined pure and unpolluted 
souls, immediately on death, to the universal 
Spirit. But those which had contracted much 
defilement were sent into a succession of other 
bodies, to purge and purify them before they 
returned to their parent substance." 

Some learned men have denied the con- 
sequence which Warburton wished to establish 
from these premises, and consider the resorption 
of these sages as figurative, and consequently 
compatible with distinct consciousness and indi- 
viduality. The researches, however, since that 
time made into the corresponding philosophy of 
the Hindoos, bear this acute and learned man 
out to the full length of his conclusion. "God, 
as separated from matter, the Hindoos contem- 
plate as a being reposing in his own happiness, 
destitute of ideas : as infinite placidity : as an 
unruffled sea of bliss: as being perfectly ab- 
stracted and void of consciousness. They there- 
fore deem it the height of perfection to be bike 
this being. The person whose very nature, say 
they, is absorbed in Divine meditation: whose 
life is like a sweet sleep, unconscious and undis- 
turbed : who does not even desire God, and who 
is changed into the image of the ever-blessed, 
obtains absorption into Brumhu." ( Ward's View 
of the Hindoos, 8vo, vol. ii. pp. 177, 8.) And that 
this doctrine of absorption is taken literally, is 
proved, not merely by the terms in which it is ex- 
pressed, though these are sufficiently unequivocal, 
but by its being opposed by some of the followers of 
Vishnoo, and by a few also of their philosophers. 
Mr. Ward quotes Jumudugnee as an exception 
to the common opinion : he says, "The idea of 
losing a distinct existence by absorption, as a drop 
is lost in the ocean, is abhorrent. It is pleasant 
to feed on sweetmeats, but no one wishes to be 
the sweetmeat itself." So satisfactorily is this 
point made out against the "wisdom of this world;" 
— by it the world neither knew God nor man. 

Another notion equally extensive and equally 
destructive of the original doctrines of the 
immortality of the human soul, and a state of 
future rewards and punishments, which sprang 
up in the Egyptian schools, and was from thence 
transmitted into Greece, India, and throughout 
all Asia, was that of a periodical destruction and 
renovation of all things. "They conceived," 
says Diodorus Siculus, "that the universe under- 
goes a periodical conflagration, after which all 
things were to be restored to their primitive 
form, to pass again through a similar succession 
of changes." The primitive tenet, of which 



[PART I. 

this was a corruption, is also evident; and it 
affords another singular instance of the subtlety 
and mischief of that spirit of error which operated 
with so much activity in early times, that the 
doctrine of the destruction of the world, and the 
consequent termination of the probationary state 
of the human race preparatory to the general 
judgment, an awful and most salutary revela- 
tion, should have been so wrought into philoso- 
phic theory, and so surrounded with poetic 
embellishment, as to engage the intellect, and to 
attract the imagination, only the more effectually 
to destroy the great moral of a doctrine which 
was not denied, and covertly to induce an entire 
unbelief in the eternal future existence of man. 

As the Stoics held that all inferior divinities 
and human souls were portions separated from 
the soul of the world, and would return into the 
first celestial fire, so they supposed that at the 
same time the whole visible world would be con- 
sumed in one general conflagration. "Then," 
says Seneca, "after an interval the world will 
be entirely renewed, every animal will be repro- 
duced, and a race of men free from guilt will 
repeople the earth. Degeneracy and corruption 
are, however, to creep in again, and the same 
process is to go on for ever." (Ep. 9.) This, 
too, is the Brahminical notion: "The Hindoos 
are taught to believe that at the end of every 
Calpa (creation or formation) all things are 
absorbed in the Deity, and at a stated time tho 
creative power will again be called into action." 
[Moore's Hindoo Pantheon.) And though the 
system of the Budhists denies a Creator, it holda 
the same species of revolution. "They are of 
opinion that the universe is eternal — at least they 
neither know it had a beginning, or will have an 
end: that it is homogeneous, and composed of 
an infinite number of similar worlds, each of 
which is a likeness of the other, and each of 
which is in a constant state of alteration, — not 
stationary for a moment, — at the instant of 
greatest perfection beginning to decline, and at 
the moment of greatest chaotic ruin beginning 
to regenerate. They compare such changes to 
a wheel in motion perpetually going round." — 
Dr. Davey's Account of Ceylon. 

But other instances of darkness and error 
among even civilized heathens respecting the 
human soul and a future state are not wanting ; 
for it is a fact which ought never to be lost sight 
of in these inquiries, that among pagans, opinions 
on these subjects have never been either certain 
or rational ; and that error once received has in 
no instance been exchanged for truth, but has 
gone on multiplying itself, and assuming an infi- 
nite variety of forms. 

The doctrine of Aristotle and the Peripatetics 



CH. VII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



35 



gives no countenance to the opinion of the soul's 
immortality, or even of its existence after death. 
Democritus and his followers taught that the 
soul is material and mortal: Heraclitus, that 
when the soul is purified from moist vapors, it 
returns into the soul of the universe ; if not, it 
perishes : Epicurus and his followers, that "when 
death is, we are not. 7 '' The leading men among 
the Romans, when philosophy was introduced 
among them, followed the various Greek sects. 
We have seen the uncertainty of Cicero. 1 Pliny 
declares, that "non magis a morte sensus ullus aut 
animce aut corpori quam ante natalem — the soul and 
body have no more sense after death than before 
we were born." (Nat. Hist. lib. 7, cap. 55.) 
Cassar, "that beyond death there is neque curai 
nequegaudio locum — neither place for care or joy." 
(Sallust. De Bello Catil. sec. 5.) Seneca in his 
102d epistle speaks of a Divine part within us, 
which joins us to the gods ; and tells Lucilius, 
"that the day which he fears as his last aster ni 
natalis est, is the birthday of eternity;" but then 
he says, "he was willing to hope it might be so, 
on the account of some great men, rem gratissi- 
viam promittentium magis quam probantium, who 
promised what they could not prove;" and on 
other occasions he speaks out plainly, and says 
that death makes us incapable of good or evil. 
The poets, it is true, spoke of a future state of 
rewards and punishments : they had the joys of 
Elysium and the tortures of Tartarus ; but both 
philosophers and poets regarded them as vulgar 
fables. Virgil does not hide this, and numerous 



l From the philosophical works of Cicero it may he diffi- 
cult to collect his own opinions, as he chiefly occupies 
himself in explaining those of others ; hut in his epistles 
to his friends, when, as Warhurton observes, we see the 
man, divested of the politician and the sophist, he professes 
his disbelief of a future state in the frankest manner. 
Thus in lib. 6, epis. 3, to Torquatus, written in order to 
console him in the unfortunate state of the affairs of their 
party, ho observes: "Sed haec consolatio levis est; ilia 
gravior, qua te uti spero ; ego certe utor. Nee enim dum 
ero, angar ulla re, cum omni vacem culpa; et si non ero, 
sensu omnino carebo. But there is another and a far higher 
consolation, which I hope is your support, as it certainly is 
mine. For so long as I shall preserve my innocence, I will 
never while I exist be anxiously disturbed at any event 
that may happen; and if I shall cease to exist, all sensi- 
bility must cease with me." 

Similar expressions are found in his letters to Toranius, 
to Lucius Mescinius, and others, which those who wish to 
prove him a believer in the soul's immortality endeavor to 
account for by supposing that he accommodated his senti- 
ments to the principles of his friends. A singular solution, 
and one which scarcely can bo seriously adopted, since in 
the above cited passage ho so strongly expresses what is 
his own opinion, and hopes that his friend takes refuge in 
the same consolation. It may be allowed that Cicoro 
alternated between unbelief and doubt; but never I think 
between doubt and certainty. Tho last was ft point to 
which he never seems to have reached. 



quotations of the same import might be given 
both from him and others of their poets. 

"Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas; 
Atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum 
Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari !" 

Georg. 2, 1. 490, etc. 

Happy the man whose vigorous soul can pierce 
Through the formation of this universe, 
Who nobly dares despise, with soul sedate, 
The din of Acheron, and vulgar fears and fate. 

Wartojt. 

Nor was the skepticism and unbelief of the wise 
and great long kept from the vulgar, among 
whom they wished to maintain the old super- 
stitions as instruments by which they might be 
controlled. Cicero complains that the common 
people in his day mostly followed the doctrine 
of Epicurus. 

Since then these erroneous and mischievous 
views concerning God, providence, and a future 
state, or the total denial of all of them, are found 
to have resulted from the rejection or loss of the 
primitive traditions; and further, as it is clear 
that such errors are totally subversive of the 
fundamental principles of morals and religion, 
and afford inducement to the commission of every 
species of crime without remorse, or fear of pun- 
ishment: the necessity of a republication of 
these great doctrines in an explicit and authentic 
manner, and of institutions for teaching and en- 
forcing them upon all ranks of men, is evident ; 
and whatever proof may be adduced for the 
authentication of the Christian revelation, it can 
never be pretended that a revelation to restore 
these great principles was not called for by the 
actual condition of man ; and, in proportion to the 
necessity of the case, is the strength of the pre- 
sumption that one has been mercifully afforded. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE NECESSITY OF REVELATION: — STATE OF 
MORALS AMONG THE HEATHEN. 

If the necessity of a revelation may be argued 
from the confused, contradictory, and false 
notions of heathen nations as to the principal 
doctrines of religion, no less forcibly may the 
argument be pursued from the state of their 
morals both in knowledge and in practice, 

This argument is simple and obvious. If the 
nature, extent, and obligation of moral rules had 
become involved in groat misapprehension and 
obscurity: if what they knew of rigid and 
wrong wanted an enforcement and an authority 
which it could not receive from their respective 
systems ; and if, for want of efficient, counter- 



36 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



acting - religious principles, the general practice 
had become irretrievably vicious : a direct inter- 
position of the Divine Being was required for 
the republication of moral rules and for their 
stronger enforcement. 

The notions of all civilized heathens on moral 
subjects, like their knowledge of the first princi- 
ples of religion, mingled as they were with their 
superstitions, prove that both were derived from 
a common source. There was a substantial 
agreement among them in many questions of 
right and wrong ; but the boundaries which they 
themselves acknowledged were not kept up, and 
the rule was gradually lowered to the practice, 
though not in all cases so as entirely to efface 
the original communication. 

This is an important consideration, inasmuch 
as it indicates the transmission of both religion 
and morals from the patriarchal system, and that 
both the primitive doctrines and their correspond- 
ing morals received early sanctions, the force of 
which was felt through succeeding ages. It 
shows, too, that even the heathen have always 
been under a moral government. The laws of 
God have never been quite obliterated, though 
their practice has ever been below their know- 
ledge, and though the law itself was greatly and 
wilfully corrupted through the influence of their 
vicious inclinations. 

This subject may perhaps be best illustrated 
by adverting to some of the precepts of the 
Second Table, which embodied the morals of the 
patriarchal ages, under a new sanction. Of the 
obligation of these, all heathen nations have been 
sensible ; and yet, in all, the rule was perverted 
in theory and violated in practice. 

Murder has, in all ages and among all civil- 
ized and most savage heathen nations also, been 
regarded as an atrocious crime ; and yet the rule 
was so far accommodated to the violent and 
ferocious habits of men, as to fill every heathen 
land with blood-guiltiness. The slight regard 
paid to the life of man, in all heathen countries, 
cannot have escaped the notice of reflecting 
minds. They knew the rule ; but the act, under 
its grosser and more deliberate forms only, was 
thought to violate it. Among the Romans, men 
were murdered in their very pastimes, by being 
made to fight with wild beasts and with each 
other ; and though this was sometimes con- 
demned, as a " spectaculum crudele et irihumanum" 
yet the passion for blood increased, and no war 
ever caused so great a slaughter as did the 
gladiatorial combats. They were at first confined 
to the funerals of great persons. The first show 
of this kind exhibited in Rome by the Bruti, on 
the death of their father, consisted of three 
couples, but afterwards the number greatly in- 



creased. Julius Caesar presented 300 pairs of 
gladiators, and the Emperor Trajan 10,000 of 
them, for the entertainment of the people. 
Sometimes these horrid exhibitions, in which, as 
Seneca says, "Homo, sacra res, homo jam per 
lusum et jocum occiditur," when the practice had 
attained its height, deprived Europe of 20,000 
lives in one month. 1 

This is further illustrated by the treatment of 
slaves, which composed so large a portion of the 
population of ancient states. 2 They knew and 
acknowledged the evil . of murder, and had 
laws for its punishment; but to this despised 
class of human beings they did not extend the 
rule ; nor was killing them accounted murder, 
any more than the killing of a beast. The 
master had absolute power of life or death, or 
torture ; and their lives were therefore sacrificed 
in the most wanton manner. 3 

By various sophistries, suggested by their 
vices, their selfishness, and their cruelty, the 
destruction of children also, under certain cir- 
cumstances, ceased to be regarded as a crime. 
In many heathen nations it was allowed to destroy 
the foetus in the womb : to strangle, or drown, 
or expose infants, especially if sickly or deformed ; 
and that which, in Christian states, is considered 
as the most atrocious of crimes, was, by the 
most celebrated of ancient pagan nations, es- 
teemed a wise and political expedient to rid the 
state of useless or troublesome members, and 
was even enjoined by some of their most cele- 
brated sages and legislators. The same practice 
continues to this day in a most affecting extent, 
not only among uncivilized pagans, but among, 
the Hindoos and the Chinese. 



1 Though Cicero, Seneca, and others, condemned these 
barbarities, it was in so incidental and indifferent a 
manner as to produce no effect. They were abolished soon 
after the establishment of Christianity, and this affords an 
illustration of the admission of Rousseau himself: "La 
philosophic ne peut faire aucun bien, que la Religion ne le 
fasse encore mieux: et la Religion en fait beaucoup que la 
philosophie ne sauroit faire." 

2 In the 110th Olympiad, there were at Athens only 
21,000 citizens and 40,000 slaves. It was common for a 
private citizen of Rome to have 10 or 20,000. (Taylor's 
Civil Law.) 

3 The youtli of Sparta made it their pastime frequently 
to lie in ambush by night for the slaves, and sally out with 
daggers upon every Helot who came near them, and murder 
him in cold blood. The Ephori, as soon as they entered 
upon their office, declared war against them in form, that 
there might be an appearance of destroying them legally. 
It was the custom for Yedius Pollio, when his slaves had 
committed a fault, sometimes a very trifling one, to order 
them to be thrown into his fish-ponds, to feed his lampreys. 
It was the constant custom, as we learn from Tacitus, 
Annal. xiv. 43, when a master was murdered in his own 
house, to put all the slaves to death indiscriminately. For 
a just and affecting account of the condition of slaves in 
ancient states, see Portecs"s Beneficial Effects of Christianity. 



CH. VII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



37 



This practice of perverting and narrowing 
the extent of the holy law of God, which had 
been transmitted to them, was exemplified also 
in the allowing, or rather commending, the prac- 
tice of suicide. 

Doubtless, the primitive law against murder 
condemned also hatred and revenge. Our 
Lord restored it to its true meaning among the 
Jews ; and that it was so understood even among 
the ancient heathens, is clear from a placable 
and forgiving spirit being sometimes praised, 
and the contrary censured, by their sages, 
moralists, and poets. Yet not only was the 
rule violated almost universally in practice, but 
it was also disputed and denied in many of its 
applications by the authority of their wise and 
learned men: so that, as far as the authority 
of moral teachers went, a full scope was given 
for the indulgence of hatred, malice, and in- 
satiate revenge. One of the qualities of the 
good man described by Cicero is, that he hurts 
no one, except he be injured himself. "Qui 
nemini nocet, nisi lacessitus injuria;" and he 
declares as to himself, "sic ulciscar facinora 
singula quemadmodum a quibusque sum provoca- 
tes: I will revenge all injuries, according as I 
am provoked by any;" and Aristotle speaks 
of meekness as a defect, because the meek man 
will not avenge himself, and of revenge as 
" uvOpayTUKOTspov fiuXKov, a more manly thing." — 
Moral. 1. 4, c. 11. 

"Thou shalt not commit adultery," was 
another great branch of the patriarchal law, 
existing before the Decalogue, as appears from 
the sacred history. It forbids uncleanness of 
every kind, in thought and deed, and specially 
guards the sanctity of marriage ; nor is there 
any precept more essential to public morals, 
and to the whole train of personal, social, domes- 
tic, and national virtues. 

It is not necessary to bring detailed proof 
of the almost universal, gross, and habitual 
violation of this sacred law in all pagan nations, 
both ancient and modern, from its first stages 
down to crimes napa <j>vgiv. This is sufficiently 
notorious to all acquainted with the history 
of the ancient and modern pagan world, and 
will not be denied by any. It is only requisite 
to show that they had the law, and that it was 
weakened and corrupted, so as to render a re- 
publication necessary. 

The public laws against adultery in almost all 
heathen states, and the censures of moralists 
and satirists, are sufficiently in proof that such a 
law was known ; and the higher the antiquity 
of the times, the more respect we see paid to 
chastity, and the better was tho practice. Nor 
was the act only considered by some of their 



moralists as sinful ; but the thought and desire, 
as may be observed in passages both in Greek 
and Roman writers. But as to this vice, too, as 
well as others, the practice lowered the rule ; 
and the authority of one lawgiver and moralist 
being neutralized by another, license was given 
to unbounded offence. 

Divorce, formerly permitted only in cases 
of adultery, became at length a mere matter 
of caprice, and that with both Jews and Gen- 
tiles ; and among the latter, adultery was chiefly 
interpreted as the violation of the marriage 
covenant by the wife only, or by the man with 
a married woman — thus leaving the husband a 
large license of vicious indulgence. To whore- 
dom and similar vices, lawgivers, statesmen, 
philosophers, and moralists gave the sanction 
of their opinions and their practice; which foul 
blot of ancient heathenism continues to this 
day to mark the morals of pagan countries. 1 

In most civilized states, the very existence 
of society, and the natural selfishness of man, 
led to the preservation of the ancient laws 
against theft and rapine, and to the due 
execution of the statutes made against them ; 
but in this also we see the same disposition to 
corrupt the original prohibition. It was not 
extended to strangers or to foreign countries ; 
nor was it generally interpreted to reach to any 
thing more than flagrant acts of violence. Usury, 
extortion, and fraud were rather regarded as 
laudatory acts, than as injurious to character; 
and so they continue to be esteemed wherever 
Christianity has not issued her authoritative 
laws against injustice in all its degrees. Through- 
out India, there is said to be scarcely such a 
thing as common honesty. 

Another great branch of morality is truth ; 
but on the obvious obligation to speak it, 
we find the same laxity both of opinion and 
practice ; and in this, heathenism presents a 

1 Terence says of simple fornication, "Nbn est scelus, 
adolescenlulum scortari flagitium est." The Spartans, through 
a principle in the institutions of Lycurgus, which con- 
trolled their ancient opinions on this subject, in certain 
prescribed cases, allowed adultery in the wife; and Plu- 
tarch, in his Lifo of Lycurgus, mentioning these laws, 
commends them as being made "<t>VOLK.£)C Kal tvoXitikioc, 
according to nature and polity." Callicratides, the Pytha- 
gorean, tells the wife that sho must bear with her hus- 
band's irregularities, since the law allows this to the man 
and not to the woman. Plutarch speaks to the same 
purpose in several places of his writings. On the other 
hand, some of the philosophers condemned adultery : and 
in many places it was punished in the woman with death, 
in the man with infamy. Still, however, the same vacilla- 
tion of judgment, and the same limitations, of what they 
sometimes confess to be the ancient rule ami custom, 
may bo observed throughout; but as far as the authority 
of philosophers went, it was chiefly 00 the side of virions 
practice. 



38 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



[PAET I. 



striking contrast to Christianity, which com- 
mands us "to speak the truth one to another," and 
denounces damnation against him that "loves or 
make* a lie."' 

They knew that li tollendum est ex rebus con- 
trahendi omne mendacium. (Cic. de Off. 1. iiL, n. 
8i.) no lie was to be used in contracts; 5 ' and 
that an honest man should do and speak nothing 
in falsehood and with hypocrisy ; but they more 
frequently departed from this rule than en- 
joined it. The rule of Menander was, '-a lie 
is better than a hurtful truth." Plato says, 
" He may lie who knows how to do it in a fit 
season;"' and Maximus Tyrius, "that there is 
nothing decorous in truth, but when it is pro- 
fitable ;" and both Plato and the Stoics frame 
a Jesuitical distinction between lying with the lips 
and in the mind. Deceit and falsehood have been 
therefore the character of all pagan nations, 
and continue so to be to this day. This is the 
character of the Chinese, as given by the best 
authorities ; and of the Hindoos it is stated by 
the most respectable Europeans, not merely mis- 
sionaries, but by those who hare long held 
official, civil, and judicial situations among them, 
that their disregard of truth is uniform and sys- 
tematic. "When discovered, it causes no surprise 
in the one party, or humiliation in the other. 
Even when they have truth to tell, they seldom 
fail to bolster it up with some appended false- 
hoods. 1 

Nor can the force of the argument in favor 
of the necessity of a direct revelation of the 
will of God by these facts be weakened by alleg- 
ing, what is unhappily too true, that where the 
Christian revelation has been known, great vio- 
lations of all these rules have been commonly 
observed : for, not to urge the moral superiority 
of the worst of Christian states, in all of them 
the authority and sanction of religion is directed 
against vice ; while among heathens, their reli- 
gion itself, having been corrupted by the wicked- 
ness of man, ha3 become the great instrument 
of encouraging every specie.3 of wickedness. 
This circumstance so fully demonstrates the ne- 
cessity of an interposition on the part of God to 
restore truth to the world, that it deserves a 
particular consideration. 



i -It is the business of all," says Sir John Shore, "from 
the Ryot to the Dewan, to conceal and deceive. The 
simplest matters of fact are designedly covered with a veil, 
which no human-understanding can penetrate." The pre- 
valence of perjury is so universal, as to involve the judges 
in extreme perplexity. "The honest men," says Mr. 
Strachey, "as well as the rogues, are perjured. Even 
where the real facts are sufficient to convict the offender, 
the witnesses against him must add others, often notorious- 
ly false, or utterly incredible, such as in Europe would 
wholly invalidate their testimony." 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE NECESSITY OF EEYELATION : RELIGIONS Of 

THE HEATHEN. 

That the religions which have prevailed 
among pagan nations have been destructive of 
morality, cannot be denied. 

How far the speculative principles which 
they embodied had this effect, has already been 
shown: we proceed to their more direct in- 
fluence. 

The gloomy superstition, which pervaded most 
of them, fostered ferocious and cruel dispo- 
sitions. 

The horrible practice of offering human sacri- 
prevailed throughout every region of the 
heathen world, to a degree which is almost in- 
credible ; and it still prevails in many populous 
countries where Christianity has not yet been 
made known. There are incontestable proofs 
of its having subsisted among the Egyptians, 
the Syrians, the Persians, the Phenicians, and 
all the various nations of the east. It was one 
of the crying sins of the Canaanites. The con- 
tagion spread over every part of Asia, Africa, 
and Europe. The Greeks and Romans, though 
less involved in this guilt than many other na- 
tions, were not altogether untainted with it. 
On great and extraordinary occasions, they had 
recourse to what was esteemed the most effica- 
cious and most meritorious sacrifice that could 
be offered to the gods, the effusion of human 
blood. 2 But among more barbarous nations, 
this practice took a firmer root. The Scythians 
and Thracians, the Gauls and the Germans, 
were strongly addicted to it ; and our own island, 
under the gloomy and ferocious despotism of the 
Druids, was polluted with the religious murder 
of its inhabitants. In the semi-civilized king- 
doms on the western side of Africa, as Dahomy, 
Ashantee, and others, many thousands fall every 
year victims to superstition. In America, Monte- 
zuma offered 20,000 victims yearly to the sun; 
and modern navigators have found the practice 
throughout the whole extent of the vast Pacific 
ocean. As for India, the cries of its abomin- 
able and cruel superstitions have been sounded 
repeatedly in the ears of the British public 
and its legislature ; and, including infants and 
widows, not fewer than 10,000 lives fall a 
sacrifice to idolatry in our eastern dominions 
yearly !* 



2 Plutarch in the Lives of Themistocles, Marcellus, and 
Aristides. — Livy 1. 22, c. 57 ; Florus 1. 1, c. 13 ; Tirg. 2En. x. 
518, xi HL 

* See Maurice's Indian Antiquities ; the writings of Dr. 
Claudius Buchanan; Ward on the Hindoos; Dubois on 



CH. VIII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



39 



The influence of these practices in obdurating 
the heart, and disposing it to habitual cruelty, 
need not be pointed out; but the religions of 
paganism have been as productive of impurity 
as of blood. 

The Floralia among the Romans were cele- 
brated for four days together by the most shame- 
less actions ; and their mysteries in every country, 
■whatever might be their original intent, became 
horribly corrupt. It was in the temples of 
many of their deities, and on their religious 
festivals, that every kind of impurity was most 
practiced; a*- J *W« ^ ^tinues to the present 
day through. _ .^ the regions of modern pa- 
ganism. 1 

This immoral tendency of their religion was 
confirmed and perfected by the very character 
and actions of their gods, whose names were 
perpetually in their mouths; and whose mur- 
derous or obscene exploits, whose villanies and 
chicaneries, whose hatreds and strifes, were the 
subject of their popular legends; which made 
up in fact the only theology, if so it may be 
called, of the body of the people. That they 
should be better than their gods was not to be 
expected, and worse they could not be. Deities 
with such attributes could not but corrupt, and 
be appealed to, not merely to excuse, but to 
sanctify the worst practices. 2 

Let this argument, then, be summed up. 

All the leading doctrines on which religion 
rests, had either been corrupted by a grovelling 
and immoral superstition among heathen na- 
tions, or the philosophic speculations of their 
wisest men had introduced principles destructive 
of man's accountability and present and future 
hope. On morals themselves the original rules 
were generally perverted, limited, or rejected; 
while the religious rites, and the legendary cha- 
racter of the deities worshipped, to the exclu- 
sion of the true God, gave direct incitement and 
encouragement to vice. Thus the grossest igno- 
rance on Divine subjects universally prevailed : 
the learned were involved in inextricable per- 
plexities; and the unlearned received as truth 
the most absurd and monstrous fables, all of 

Hindoo Manners, etc.; Robertson's History of America; 
Bowditch's Account of Ashantee; Moore's Hindoo Pan- 
theon; and Porteus and Ryan on the Effects of Chris- 
tianity. 

l See Lcland and Whitby, on the Necessity of a Revela- 
tion ; and the writers on the customs of India,— Ward, 
Dubois, Buchanan, and Mooro, beforo referred too. 

1 Hence ChiBrea, in Terence, pertinently enough asks, 
Quod fecit is qui templa cazli suinrrva sonitu concutit, ego 
Jiomuncio non faccrcm? Eunuch. Act. 3, sec. 5. He only 
imitated Jupiter. And says Scxtus Empyricus, "That can- 
not be unjust which is dono by the god Mercury, the prince 
of thieves, for how can a god bo wicked?" — Ajuul. F.uscb. 
JPrcpp. lib. 6, cap. 10. 



them, however, favorable to vicious indulgence. 
' The actual state of morals also accorded with 
[ the corrupt religious systems and the lax moral 
I principles which they adopted ; so that in every 
I heathen state of ancient times, the description 
i of the Apostle Paul, in the first chapter of Eto- 
nians, is supported by the evidence of their own 
' historians and poets. The same may also be 
affirmed of modern pagan countries, whose moral 
j condition may explain more fully, as they are 
! now so well known through our intercourse with 
j them, the genius and moral tendency of the an- 
cient idolatries, with which those of India, and 
other parts of the east especially, so exactly 
agree. 

These are the facts. They affect not a small 
portion of mankind, but all who have not had 
the benefits of the doctrines and morals of the 
Holy Scriptures. There are no exceptions from 
this of any consequence to the argument, though 
some difference in the morals of heathen states 
may be allowed. Where the Scriptures are un- 
known, there is not, nor ever has been since the 
corruption of the primitive religion, a religious 
system which has contained just views of God 
and religious truth, the Theists of the present 
day being judges: none which has enjoined a 
correct morality, or even opposed any effectual 
barrier against the deterioration of public man- 
ners. These facts cannot be denied; for the 
allegations formerly made of tho morality of 
modern pagan nations have been sufficiently re- 
futed by a better acquaintance with them ; and 
the conclusion is irresistible, that an express 
revelation of the will of God, accompanied with 
efficient corrective institutions, was become ne- 
cessary, and is still demanded, by the ignorance 
and vices, the miseries and disorders, of every 
part of the earth into which Christianity has not 
been introduced. 

But we may go another step. This exhibition 
of the moral condition of those nations who have 
not had the benefit of the renewal and republi- 
cation of the truths of the patriarchal religion, 
not only supports the conclusion that new and 
direct revelations from God were necessary; but 
the wants, which that condition so obviously 
created, will support other presumptions as to 
the nature and mode of that revelation, in the 
case of such a gift being bestowed in the exor- 
cise of the Divine mercy; for if there is ground 
to presume that Almighty God, in his compassion 
for his creatures, would not lcavo thorn to the 
unchecked influence of error and vioc; nor, 
upon tho corruption of that simple but compre- 
hensive doctrine, worship and morals, commu- 
nicated to the progenitors of all those groat 
branches of tho family of man which have boon 



40 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



spread over the earth, refuse to interpose to 
renew and to perfect that religious system which 
existed in an elementary form in the earliest 
ages, and give it a form less liable to alteration 
and decay than when left to he transmitted by 
tradition alone : there is equal ground to pre- 
sume, that the revelation, whenever vouchsafed, 
should be of that nature, and accompanied by 
such circumstances, as would most effectually 
accomplish this benevolent purpose. 

Presumptions as to the manner in which such 
a revelation would be made most effectually to 
accomplish its ends, are indeed to be guarded, 
lest we should set up ourselves as adequate 
judges in a case which involves large views and 
extensive bearings of the Divine government. 
But without violating this rule, it may, from the 
obviousness of the case, be presumed that such 
a supernatural manifestation of truth should, 1, 
contain explicit information on those important 
subjects on which mankind had most greatly and 
most fatally erred. 2. That it should accord with 
the principles of former revelations, given to men 
in the same state of guilt and moral incapacity 
as we find them in the present day. 3. That it 
should have a satisfactory external authentica- 
tion. 4. That it should contain provisions for 
its effectual promulgation among all classes of 
men. All this, allowing the necessity and the 
probability of a supernatural communication of 
the will of God, must certainly be expected ; and 
if the Christian revelation bears this character, 
it has certainly these presumptions in its favor, 
that it meets an obvious case of necessity, and 
confers the advantages just enumerated. 

1. It gives information on those subjects which 
are most important to man, and which the world 
had darkened with the greatest errors-^-Me nature 
and perfections, claims and relations of God — his 
will 1 as the rule of moral good and evil — the 
means of obtaining pardon and of conquering vice — 
the true Mediator between God and man — Divine 
Providence — the chief good of man, respecting 
which alone more than three hundred different 
opinions among the ancient sages have been 
reckoned up — man's immortality and accounta- 
bility — and a tuture state. 

2. It is also required that a revelation shoiild 
accord with the principles of former revelations, 
should any have been given. 

For since it is a first principle that God cannot 
err himself, nor deceive us, so far as one revela- 
tion renews or explains any truth in a preceding 
one, it must agree with the previous communica- 
tion ; and in what it adds to a preceding revela- 
tion, it cannot contradict any thing which it 

1 See note A at the end of the chapter. 



[PART I. 

contains, if it be exhibited as a truth of un- 
changeable character, or a duty of perpetual 
obligation. 

Now, whatever direct proof may be adduced 
in favor of the Divine authority of the Jewish 
and Christian revelations, this at least may be 
confidently urged as evidence in their favor, that 
they have a substantial agreement and harmony 
among themselves, and with that ancient tradi- 
tional system which existed in the earliest ages, 
and the fragments of which we find scattered 
among all nations. As to the patriarchal system 
of religion, to which reference has been so often 
made, beside the notices of it which are every- 
where scattered in the book of Genesis, we have 
ample and most satisfactory information in the 
ancient book of Job, of which sufficient evidence 
may be given that it was written not later than 
the time of Moses, and that Job himself lived 
between the flood of Noah and the call of Abra- 
ham. Of the religion of the patriarchs, as it 
existed just at that period when Sabianism, or 
the worship of the heavenly luminaries, begen 
to make its appearance, and was restrained by 
the authority of the "judges" who were the 
heads of tribes or families, and as it existed in 
the preceding ages, as we find from the reference 
made by Job and his friends to the authority of 
their "fathers" this book contains an ample and 
most satisfactory record ; and from this venera- 
ble relic a very copious body of doctrinal and 
practical theology might be collected; but the 
following particulars will be sufficient for the 
present argument : — 

One Supreme Being alone is recognized 
throughout, as the object of adoration, worship, 
hope, trust, and fear : who is represented as of 
infinite and unsearchable majesty — eternal, om- 
nipresent, omniscient, almighty, and of perfect 
wisdom, justice, goodness — governing all things, 
noting and judging individuals, regarding the 
good, punishing the wicked, placable, listening 
to the prayers of the penitent. The natural 
corruption of man's nature is also stated, and 
his own inability to cleanse his heart from sin. 
Man, we are told, cannot be just with God, and 
therefore needs an intercessor. Sacrifices, as of 
Divine appointment, and propitiatory in their 
nature, are also adverted to as commonly prac- 
ticed. Express reference is made to a Divine 
Redeemer, and his future incarnation, as an 
object of hope. The doctrines of an immortal 
spirit in man, and of the resurrection of the 
body, and a future judgment, have all a place in 
this system. Creation is ascribed to God ; and 
not only the general doctrine of Providence, but 
that most interesting branch of it, the connection 
of dispensations of prosperity and affliction with 



CH. VIII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



41 



moral ends. Murder, theft, oppression, injustice, 
adultery, intemperance, are all pointed out as 
violations of the laws of God ; and also wrath, 
envy, and other evil passions. Purity of heart, 
kindness, compassion to the poor, etc., are 
spoken of as virtues of the highest obligation ; 
and the fear and love of God are enjoined, with 
a calm and cheerful submission to his will, in 
humble trust that the darkness of present events 
will be ultimately cleared up, and shown to be 
consistent with the wisdom, justice, holiness, and 
truth of God. The same points of doctrine and 
morals may also be collected from the book of 
Genesis. 

Such was the comprehensive system of patri- 
archal theology ; and it is not necessary to stop 
to point out that these great principles are all 
recognized and taken up in the successive reve- 
lations by Moses and by Christ, — exhibiting three 
religious systems, varying greatly in circumstances : 
introduced at widely distant periods, and by agents 
greatly differing in their condition and circum- 
stances; but exactly harmonizing in every leading 
doctrinal tenet, and agreeing in their great moral 
impression upon mankind — perfect purity of 

HEART AND CONDUCT. 

3. That it .should be accompanied with an ex- 
plicit and impressive external authentication, of 
such a nature as to make its truth obvious to the 
mass of mankind, and to leave no reasonable 
doubt of its divine authority. 

The reason of this is evident. A mere im- 
pression of truth on the understanding could not 
by itself be distinguished from a discovery made 
by the human intellect, and could have no au- 
thority, as a declaration of the will of a superior, 
with the person receiving it ; and as to others, it 
could only pass for the opinion of the individual 
who might promulge it. [Vide chap. 3.) An 
authentication of a system of truth, which pro- 
fesses to be the will, the law, of him who, having 
made, has the right to command us, external to 
the matter of the doctrine itself, is therefore 
necessary to give it authority, and to create the 
obligation of obedience. This accords with the 
opinion of all nations up to the earliest ages, and 
was so deeply wrought in the common sense of 
mankind, that all the heathen legislators of an- 
tiquity affected a Divine commission, and all false 
religions have leaned for support upon pretended 
supernatural sanctions. The proofs of this are 
so numerous and well known, that it is unneces- 
sary to adduce them. 

The authority of the ancient patriarchal reli- 
gion rested on proof external to itself. Wo do 
not now examine the truth of its alleged authen- 
tications, — they were admitted; and the force 
of the revelation depended upon them in the 



judgment of mankind. We have a most ancient 
book, which records the opinions of the ante- 
Mosaic ages. The theology of those ages has 
been stated ; and from the history contained in 
that book we learn, that the received opinion 
was, that the almighty Lawgiver himself con- 
versed with our first parents and with the patri- 
archs, under celestial appearances ; and that his 
mercies to men, or hi3 judgments, failed not to 
follow ordinarily the observance or violation of 
the laws thus delivered, which was in fact an 
authentication of them renewed from time to 
time. The course of nature, displaying the 
eternal power and Godhead, as well as the visita- 
tions of Providence, was to them a constant 
confirmation of several of the leading truths in 
the theology they had received ; and by the deep 
impress of Divinity which this system received 
in the earliest ages from the attestations of sin- 
gular judgments, and especially the flood, it is 
only rationally to be accounted for that it was 
universally transmitted, and waged so long a war 
against religious corruptions. 

But notwithstanding the authentication of the 
primitive religion, as a matter of Divine revela- 
tion, and the effects produced by it in the world 
for many ages — and indeed still produced by it 
in its very broken and corrupted state, in con- 
demning many sinful actions, so as to render the 
crimes of heathens without excuse — that system 
was traditional, and liable to be altered by trans- 
mission. In proportion also as historical events 
were confounded by the lapse of time, and as the 
migrations and political convulsions of nations 
gave rise to fabulous stories, the external 
authenticating evidence became weak, and thus 
a merciful interposition on the part of God was, 
as we have seen, rendered necessary by the 
general ignorance of mankind. Indeed, the 
primitive revelations supposed future ones, and 
were not in themselves regarded as complete. But 
if a republication only of the truth had been 
necessary, the old external evidence was so 
greatly weakened by the lapse of ages, which as 
to most nations had broken the line of historical 
testimony on which it so greatly rested, that it 
required a new authentication, in a form adapted 
to the circumstances of the world ; and it* an 
enlarged revelation were vouchsafed, every addi- 
tion to the declared will of God needed an 
authentication of the same kind as at first. 

If we presume, therefore, that a new revela- 
tion was necessary, we must presume that, when 
given, it would have an external authentication 
as coming from God, from which there could bo 
no reasonable appeal; and we therefore conclude, 
that as tho Mosaic and Christian revelations 
profess both to republish and to enlarge former 



42 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



revelations, the circumstance of their resting 
their claims on the external evidence of miracles 
and prophecy, is a presumption in their favor. 
Whether the evidence which they offer be deci- 
sive or not, is a future question ; but in exhibit- 
ing such evidence, they accord with the reason 
of the thing, and with the common sense of all 



4. It is further presumed that, should a reve- 
lation of religious truth and the will of God be 
made, it would provide means for its effectual 
communication to all classes of men. 

As the revelation supposed must be designed 
to restore and enlarge the communications of 
truth, and as, from the increase and dispersion 
of the human race, tradition had become an 
imperfect medium of conveying it, it is a fair 
presumption, that the persons through whom the 
communication was made should record it in 
writing. A revelation to every individual could 
not maintain the force of its original authentica- 
tion ; because, as its attestation must be of a 
supernatural kind, its constant recurrence would 
divest it of that character, or weaken its force 
by bringing it among common and ordinary 
events. A revelation, on the contrary, to few, 
properly and publicly attested by supernatural 
occurrences, needed not repetition; but the most 
natural and effectual mode of preserving the 
communication, once made, would be to transmit 
it by writing. Any corruption of the record 
would be rendered impracticable by its being 
publicly taught in the first instance ; by a 
standard copy being preserved with care ; or by 
such a number of copies being dispersed as to 
defy material alteration. This presumption is 
realized also in the Jewish and Christian revela- 
tions, as will be seen when the subject of the 
authority of the Holy Scriptures comes to be 
discussed. They were first publicly taught, 
then committed to writing, and the copies were 
multiplied. 

Another method of preserving and diffusing 
the knowledge of a revelation once made, would 
be the institution of public commemorative rites, 
at once preserving the memory of the fact, and 
of the doctrine connected with it, among great 
bodies of people, and leading them to such peri- 
odical inquiries as might preserve both with the 
greatest accuracy. These also we find in the 
institutions of Moses, and of Christ; and their 
weight in the argument for the truth of the 
mission of each, will bo adduced in its proper 
place. 

Allowing it to be reasonable to presume that 
a revelation would be vouchsafed, it is equally so 
to presume that it should contain some injunc- 
tions favorable to its propagation among men of 



all ranks. For as the compassion of God to the 
moral necessities of his creatures, generally, is 
the ground on which so great a favor rests, we 
cannot suppose that one class of men should be 
allowed to make a monopoly of this advantage ; 
and this would be a great temptation to them to 
publish their own favorite or interested opinions 
under a pretended Divine sanction, and tend to 
counteract the very purpose for which a revela- 
tion was given. Such a monopoly was claimed 
by the priests of ancient pagan nations; and 
that fatal effect followed. It was claimed for a 
time by a branch of the Christian priesthood, 
contrary to the obligations of the institution 
itself; and the consequences were similar. 
Among the heathens, the effect of this species of 
monopoly was, that those who encouraged super- 
stition and ignorance among the people, speedily 
themselves lost the truth, which, through a 
wicked poblcy, they concealed; and the case 
might have been the same in Christendom, but 
for the sacred records, and for those witnesses to 
the truth who prophesied and suffered, more or 
less, throughout the darkest ages. 1 

This reasonable expectation also is realized in 
the Mosaic and Christian revelations ; — both 
provided for their general publication — both 
instituted an order of men, not to conceal, but 
to read and teach the truth committed to them — 
both recognized a right in the people to search 
the record, and by it to judge of the ministration 
of the priests — both made it obligatory on the 
people to be taught — and both separated one day 
in seven to afford leisure for that purpose. 

Nothing but such a revelation, and with such 
accompanying circumstances, appears capable 
of reaching the actual case of mankind, and of 
effectually instructing and bringing them under 
moral control; 2 and, whether the Bible can be 
proved to be of Divine authority or not, this at 
least must be granted, that it presents itself to 
us under these circumstances, and claims, for 
this very reason, the most serious and unpreju- 
diced attention. 



Note A. 

Different opinions have been held as to the ground of 
moral obligation. Grotius, Balguy, and Dr. S. Clarke, place 
it in the eternal and necessary fitness of things. To this 

1 Bishop Warburton endeavors to prove, by an elaborate 
argument in his "Divine Legation," that in the Greater 
Mysteries, the Divine Unity and the errors of Polytheism 
■were constantly taught. This, however, is most satisfacto- 
rily disproved by Dr. Leland, in his "Advantage and 
Necessity of a Divine Revelation ;" to both of which works 
the reader is referred for information as to those singular 
institutions — the heathen mysteries. 

2 See note B at the end of the chapter. 



CH. VIII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



43 



there are two objections. The First is, that it leaves the 
distinction between virtue and vice, in a great measure, 
arbitrary and indefinite, dependent upon our perception of 
fitness and unfitness, which, in different individuals, will 
greatly differ. The Second is, that when a fitness or unfit- 
ness is proved, it is no more than the discovery of a natural 
essential difference or congruity, which alone cannot con- 
stitute a moral obligation to choose what is fit, and to reject 
what is unfit. When We have proved a fitness in a certain 
course of action, we have not proved that it is obligatory. 
A second step is necessary before we can reach this conclu- 
sion. Cudworth, Butler, Price, and others, maintain, that 
virtue carries its own obligation in itself: that the under- 
standing at once perceives a certain action to he right, and 
therefore it ought to be performed. Several objections lie to 
this notion. 1. It supposes the understandings of men to 
determine precisely in the same manner concerning all 
virtuous and vicious actions, which is contrary to fact. 2. 
It supposes a previous rule, by which the action is deter- 
mined to be right; but if the revealed will of God is not to 
be taken into consideration, what common rule exists 
among men ? There is evidently no such rule, and there- 
fore no means of certainly determining what is right. 3. 
If a common standard were known among men, and if the 
understandings of men determined in the same manner as 
to the conformity, or otherwise, of an action to that stand- 
ard, what renders it a matter of obligation that any one 
should perform it ? The rule must be proved to be binding, 
or no ground of obligation is established. 

An action is obligatory, say others, because it is agreeable 
to the moral sense. This is the theory of Lord Shaftesbury 
and Dr. Hutchinson. By moral sense appears to be meant 
an instinctive approbation of right, and abhorrence of 
wrong, prior to all reflection on their nature, or their con- 
sequences. If any thing else were understood by it, then 
the moral sense must be the same with conscience, which 
we know to vary with the judgment, and cannot therefore 
be the basis of moral obligation. If conscience be not 
meant, then the moral sense must be considered as instinct- 
ive — a notion, certainly, which is disproved by the whole 
moral history of man. It may, indeed, be conceded, that 
such is the constitution of the human soul, that when those 
distinctions between actions, which have been taught by 
religious tradition or direct revelation, are known in their 
nature, relations, and consequences, the calm and sober 
judgments of men will approve of them; and that espe- 
cially when they are considered abstractedly, that is, as not 
affecting and controlling their own interests and passions 
immediately, virtue may command complacency, and vice 
provoke abhorrence ; but that, independent of reflection on 
their nature or their consequences, there is an instinctive 
principle in man which abhors evil, and loves good, is con- 
tradicted by that variety of opinion and feeling on the 
vices and virtues which obtains among all uninstrncted 
nations. We applaud the forgiveness of an injury as mag- 
nanimous : a savage despises it as mean. We think it a 
duty to support and cherish aged parents : many nations, 
on the contrary, abandon them as useless, and throw them 
to the beasts of the field. Innumerable instances of this 
contrariety might be adduced, which are all contrary to 
the notion of instinctive sentiment. Instincts operate 
uniformly, but this assumed moral sense does not. Beside, 
if it be mere matter of feeling, independent of judgment, 
to love virtue, and abhor vice, the morality of tho exercise 
of this principle is questionable ; for it would be difficult to 
show that there is anymore morality, properly speaking, 
in the affections and disgusts of instinct, than In those of 
the palate. If judgment, the knowledge and comparison 
of things, be included, then this principlo supposes a uni- 
form and universal individual revelation, as to tho nature 
of things^ to every man, or an intuitivo faculty of deter- 
mining their moral quality; both of which are too absurd 
to be maintained. 



The only satisfactory conclusion on this subject, is that 
which refers moral obligation to the will of God. " Obliga- 
tion," says Warburton, "necessarily implies an obliger, 
and the obliger must be different from, and not one and 
the same with, the obliged. Moral obligation, that is, the 
obligation of a free agent, further implies a law, which en- 
joins and forbids ; but a law is the imposition of an intelli- 
gent superior, who hath power to exact conformity there- 
to." This lawgiver is God; and whatever may be the 
reasons which have led him to enjoin this, and to prohibit 
that, it is plain that the obligation to obey lies not merely 
in the fitness and propriety of a creature obeying an 
infinitely wise and good Creator, though such a fitness 
exists, but in that obedience being enjoined. 

Some, allowing this, would push the matter farther, in 
search of a more remote ground of obligation. They put 
the question, "Why am I obliged to obey the will of God?" 
and give us the answer, " Because obedience to the com- 
mands of a benevolent God must be productive of the 
agent's happiness on the whole." But this is putting out 
to sea again ; for, 1. It cannot be proved that the considera- 
tion of our own happiness is a ground of moral obligation 
at all except in some such vague sense as we use the term 
obligation when we say, " We are obliged to take exercise, 
if we would preserve our health." 2. We should be in 
danger of setting up a standard by which to judge of the 
propriety of obeying God, when, indeed, we are but in- 
adequate judges of what is for our happiness, on the 
whole. Or, 3. It would make moral obligation to rest upon 
our faith, that God can will only our happiness, which is a 
singular principle on which to build our obedience. On 
the contrary, the simple principle that moral obligation 
rests upon the will of God, by whatever means that will 
may be known, is unclogged with any of these difficulties. 
For, 1. It is founded on a clear principle of justice. He 
who made has an absolute property in us, and may there- 
fore command us; and having actually commanded us, we 
cannot set up any claim of exemption — we are his. 2. He 
has connected reward with obedience, and punishment with 
disobedience, and therefore made it necessary for us to 
obey, if we would secure our own happiness. Thus we are 
obliged, both by the force of the abstract principle, and by 
the motive resulting from a sanctioned command ; or, in 
the language of the schools, we are obliged in reason, and 
obliged in interest, but each obligation evidently emanates 
from the will of God. Other considerations, such as the 
excellence and beauty of virtue, its tendency to individual 
happiness and universal order, etc., may smooth the path 
of obedience, and render "his commandments joyous;" 
but the obligation, strictly speaking, can only rest in the 
will of the superior and commanding power. 



Note B. 

Though some will allow the ignorance of former times, 
they think that the improved reason of man is now more 
adequate to the discovery of moral truth. 

"They contend that the world was then in the infancy 
of knowledge; and argue as if the illustrious sages of old 
(whom they nevertheless sometimes extol in terms of ex- 
travagant panegyric) were very babes in philosophy, such 
as tho wise ones of later ages regard with a sort of con- 
temptuous commiseration. 

"But may we not bo permitted to ask, whence this 

assumed superiority of modem over ancient philosophers 

has arisen? and whence the extraordinary influx of light 
upon those latter times has been derived? Is there anv 
one so infatuated by his admiration oi' the present age. as 
seriously to think (hat the intellectual powers oi' man are 
stronger and more perfect now than they were wont to bo? 
or that the particular talents of himself, or any of his con- 



44 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



temporaries, arc superior to those which shone forth in 
the luminaries of the Gentile world ? Do the names even 
of Locke, Cudworth, Cumberland, Clarke, Wilkins, or 
Wollaston, (men so justly eminent in modern times, and 
who labored so indefatigably to perfect the theory of 
natural religion,) convey to us an idea of greater intellect- 
ual ability than those of the consummate masters of the 
Portico, the Grove, or the Lyceum? How is it, then, that 
the advocates for the natural perfection, or perfectibility, 
of human reason, do not perceive that for all the superiority 
of the present over former times, with respect to religious 
knowledge, we must be indebted to some intervening cause, 
and not to any actual enlargement of the human faculties ? 
Is it to be believed that any man of the present age, of 
whatever natural talents he may be possessed, could have 
advanced one step beyond the heathen philosophers in his 
pursuit of Divine truth, had he lived in their times, and 
enjoyed only the light that was bestowed upon them? Or 
can it be fairly proved that, merely by the light of nature, 
or by reasoning upon such data only as men possess who 
never heard of revealed religion, any moral or religious 
truth has been discovered since the days when Athens and 
Rome affected to give laws to the intellectual as well as 
to the political world? That great improvements have 
since been made, in framing systems of ethics, of meta- 
physics, and of what is called natural theology, need not 
be denied. But these improvements may easily be traced 
to one obvious cause — the widely diffused light of the 
gospel, which, having shone, with more or less lustre, on 
all nations, has imparted, even to the most simple and 
illiterate of the sons of men, such a degree of knowledge 
on these subjects as, without it, would be unattainable by 
the most learned and profound." — Tax Mildert's Boyle's 
Led. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE EVIDENCES NECESSARY TO AUTHENTICATE A 
REVELATION — EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

The evidence usually offered in proof of the 
Divine authority of the Scriptures, may he divided 

into EXTERNAL, INTERNAL, and COLLATERAL. The 

external evidence consists of miracles and pro- 
phecy : the internal evidence is drawn from the 
consideration of the doctrines taught, as being 
consistent with the character of God, and tend- 
ing to promote the virtue and happiness of man ; 
and the collateral evidence arises from a variety 
of circumstances, which, less directly than the 
former, prove the revelation to he of Divine 
authority, hut are yet supposed to he of great 
weight in the argument. On each of these kinds 
of evidence we shall offer some general remarks, 
tending to prepare the way for a demonstration 
of the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. 

The principal and most appropriate evidences 
of a revelation from God must be external to the 
revelation itself. This has been before stated; 
but it may require a larger consideration. 

A Divine revelation has been well defined to 
be " a discovery of some proposition to the mind, 
which came not in by the usual exercise of its 
faculties, but by some miraculous Divine inter- 



position and attestation, either mediate or im- 
mediate." (Doddridge's Lectures, part 5, defi- 
nition 68.) It is not thought necessary to 
attempt to prove such a revelation possible ; for, 
as out* argument is supposed to be with a person 
who acknowledges not only that there is a God, 
but that he is the Creator of men, it would 
be absurd in such a one to deny that he who 
gave us minds capable of knowledge is not able, 
instantly and immediately, to convey knowledge 
to us ; and that he who has given us the power 
of communicating ideas to each other, should 
have no means of communicating with us imme- 
diately from himself. 

We need not inquire whether external evidence 
of a revelation is in all cases requisite to him 
who immediately and at first receives it; for 
the question is not whether private revelations 
have ever been made by God to individuals, and 
what evidence is required to authenticate them ; 
but what is the kind of evidence which we ought 
to require of one who professes to have received 
a revelation of the will of God, with a command 
to communicate it to us, and to enjoin it upon 
our acceptance and submission, as the rule of our 
opinions and manners. 

He may believe that a Divine communication 
has been made to himself ; but his belief has no 
authority to command ours. He may have 
actually received it ; but we have not the means 
of knowing it without proof. 

That proof is not the high and excellent nature 
of the truths he teaches: in other words, that 
which is called the internal evidence cannot be 
that proof. For we cannot tell whether the 
doctrines he teaches, though they should be 
capable of a higher degree of rational demonstra- 
tion than any delivered to the world before, may 
not be the fruits of his own mental labor. He 
may be conscious that they are not ; but we have 
no means of knowing that of which he is con- 
scious, except by his own testimony. To us, 
therefore, they would have no authority but as 
the opinions of a man whose intellectual attain- 
ments we might admire, but to whom we could 
not submit as to an infallible guide ; and the 
less so, if any part of the doctrine taught by 
him were either mysterious and above our reason, 
or contrary to our interests, prejudices, and 
passions. 

If, therefore, any person should profess to 
have received a revelation of truth from God to 
teach to mankind, and that he was directed to com- 
mand their obedience to it on pain of the Divine 
displeasure, he would be asked for some external 
authentication of his mission; nor would the 
reasonableness and excellence of his doctrines be 
accepted in place of this. The latter might 



CH. IX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



45 



entitle him to attention ; but nothing short of the 
former would be thought a ground sufficiently 
strong for yielding to him an absolute obedience. 
Without it he might reason, and be heard with 
respect; but he could not command. On this 
very reasonable ground the Jews, on one occa- 
sion, asked our Lord, "By what authority doest 
thou these things?" and on another, "What sign 
showest thou unto us?" 

Agreeably to this, the authors both of the Jew- 
ish and the Christian revelations profess to have 
authenticated their mission by the two great 
external proofs, Miracles and Prophecy; and 
it remains to be considered whether this kind of 
authentication be reasonably sufficient to com- 
mand our faith and obedience. 

The question is not, whether we may not con- 
ceive of external proofs of the mission of Moses, 
and of Christ and his apostles, differing from 
those which are assumed to have been given, and 
more convincing. In whatever way the authenti- 
cation had been made, we might have conceived 
of modes of proof differing in kind, or more 
ample in circumstance : so that to ground an 
objection upon the absence of a particular kind 
of proof for which we have a preference, would 
be trifling. 1 But this is the question : Is a mission 
to teach the will of God to man, under his imme- 
diate authority, sufficiently authenticated when 
miracles are really performed, and prophecies 
actually and unequivocally accomplished? To 
this point only the inquiry need now go ; for 
whether real miracles were performed by Moses 
and Christ, and whether prophecies were actually 

1 " We know not beforehand what degree or kind of 
natural information it were to be expected God would 
afford men, each by his own reason and experience ; nor 
how far he would enable and effectually dispose them to 
communicate it, whatever it should be, to each other ; nor 
whether the evidence of it would be certain, highly pro- 
bable, or doubtful; nor whether it would be given with 
equal clearness and conviction to all. Nor could we guess, 
upon any good ground I mean, whether natural knowledge, 
or even the faculty itself by which we are capable of 
attaining it, reason, would be given us at once, or gradu- 
ally. In like manner, wo are wholly ignorant what degree 
of new knowledge it were to be expected God would give 
mankind, by revelation, upon supposition of his affording 
one ; or how far, or in what way, ho would interpose 
miraculously to qualify them, to whom ho should originally 
make the revelation, for communicating the knowledge 
given by it, and to secure their doing it to the ago in which 
they should live, and to secure its being transmitted to 
posterity. We are equally ignorant whether the evidence 
of it would be certain, or highly probable, or doubtful; or 
whether all who should have any degree of instruction 
from it, and any degree of evidence of its truth, would have 
tho same; or whether the scheme would be revealed at once, 
or unfolded gradually. Nay, wo are not, in any sort, able 
to judge whether it were to havo been expected that the 
revelation should have been committed to writing, or left 
to bo handed down, and consequently corrupted, by verbal 
tradition, and, at length, sunk under it. if mankind so 



uttered by them, and received unequivocal accom- 
plishment, will be reserved for a farther stage of 
the inquiry. 

There is a popular, a philosophic, and a theologi- 
cal sense of the term miracle. 

A miracle, in the popular sense, is a prodigy, 
or an extraordinary event, which surprises us by 
its novelty. In a more accurate and philosophic 
sense, a miracle is an effect which does not follow 
from any of the regular laws of nature, or which 
is inconsistent with some known law of it, or 
contrary to the settled constitution and course 
of things. Accordingly, all miracles presuppose 
an established system of nature, within the limits 
of which they operate, and with the order of 
which they disagree. 

Of a miracle in the theological sense, many 
definitions have been given. 2 That of Dr. Samuel 
Clarke is, — "A miracle is a work effected in a 
manner unusual, or different from the common 
and regular method of providence, by the inter- 
position of God himself, or of some intelligent 
agent superior to man, for the proof or evidence 
of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of 
the authority of some particular person." 

Mr. Home defines a miracle to be "an effect 
or event contrary to the established constitution 
or course of things, or a sensible suspension or 
controlment of, or deviation from, the known 
laws of nature, wrought either by the immediate 
act, or by the assistance, or by the permission 
of God." (Introduction to the Critical Study of 
the Scriptures, vol. 1, c. 4, sec. 2.) This defini- 
tion would be more complete in the theological 

pleased, and during such time as they are permitted, in 
the degree they evidently are, to act as they will. 

"Now, since it has been shown that we have no principles 
of reason upon which to judge beforehand how it were 
to be expected revelation should have been left, or what 
was most suitable to tho Divine plan of government in any 
of the forementioned respects, it must be quite frivolous 
to object afterward as to any of them against its being 
left one way rather than another; for this would be to 
object against things upon account of their being differ- 
ent from our expectations, which has been shown to be 
without reason. And thus we see that the only question 
concerning the truth of Christianity is, whether it be a 
real revelation — not whether it be attended with every 
circumstance which we should have looked for; and con- 
cerning the authority of Scripture, whether it be what it 
claims to be — not whether it bo a book of such sort, and so 
promulgcd, as weak men are apt to fancy a book contain- 
ing a Divine revelation should be. And. therefore, neither 
obscurity, nor seeming inaccuracy of style, nor various 
readings, nor early disputes about the authors of particular 
parts, nor any other things of tho like kind, though they 
had been much more considerable in degree than they are. 
could overthrow the authority of the Scripture, unless the 
prophets, apostles, or our Lord, had promised that the 

book containing the Divine revelation should be secure 
from those things."- -in tu:u's Analogy, 

2 The reader may see several of them enumerated and 
examined in Doddridge's Leotures, part 5. 



4G 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



sense, if the last clause in Dr. S. Clarke's defini- 
tion were added to it, "for the proof or evidence 
of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of 
the authority of some particular person." With 
this addition the definition will be sufficiently 
satisfactory, as it explains the nature of the 
phenomenon, and gives the reason or end of its 
occurrence. 

Farmer, in his "Dissertation on Miracles," 
denies to any created intelligences, however 
high, the power of working miracles, when acting 
from themselves alone. This dispute is only to 
be settled by a strict definition of terms; but 
whatever power may be allowed to superior 
beings to produce miraculous effects, or effects 
apparently so, by the control they may be sup- 
posed to exert over natural objects, yet, as they 
are all under the government of God, they have 
certainly no power to interfere with his work, 
and the order of his providence, at pleasure. 
Whatever they do, therefore, whether by virtue 
of natural power, or power specially communi- 
cated, they must do it by commission, or at least 
by license. 

The miracles under consideration are such 
effects as agree with the definition just given, 
and which are wrought either immediately by 
God himself, to attest the Divine mission of par- 
ticular persons, and to authenticate their doc- 
trines ; or by superior beings commissioned by 
him for the same purpose ; or by the persons 
themselves who profess this Divine authority, in 
order to prove that they have been invested with 
it by God. 

The possibility of miracles wrought by the 
power of God, can be denied by none but Atheists, 
or those whose system is substantially atheistic. 
Spinosa denies that any power can supersede 
that of nature ; or that any thing can disturb or 
interrupt the order of things ; and accordingly 
he defines a miracle to be "a rare event happen- 
ing in consequence of some laws that are unknown 
to us." This is a definition of a prodigy, not of 
a miracle ; but if miracles in the proper sense be 
allowed, that is, if the facts themselves which 
have been commonly called miraculous be not 
disputed, this method of accounting for them is 
obviously most absurd : inasmuch as it is sup- 
posed that these unknown laws chanced to come 
into operation, just when men professing to be 
endued with miraculous powers wished them, 
while yet such laws were to them unknown. 
For instance, when Moses contended with the 
Egyptian magicians, though these laws were un- 
known to him, he ventured to depend upon their 
operation, and by chance they served his purpose. 

To one who believes in a Supreme Creator of 
all things, and the dependence of all things upon 



[PART I. 

his power and will, miraculous interpositions 
must be allowed possible ; nor is there any thing 
in them repugnant to our ideas of his wisdom 
and immutability, and the perfection of his 
works. They are departures from the ordinary 
course of God's operation; but this does not 
arise from any natural necessity, to remedy an 
unforeseen evil, or to repair imperfections in his 
work : the reasons for them are moral and not 
natural reasons, and the ends they are intended 
to accomplish are moral ends. They remind us, 
when they occur, that there is a power superior 
to nature, and that all nature, even to its first 
and most uniform laws, depends upon Him. 
They are among the chief means by which He 
who is by nature invisible, makes himself as it 
were visible to his creatures, who are so prone to 
forget him entirely, or to lose sight of him by 
reason of the interposition of the veil of material 
1 



1 Bishop Butler has satisfactorily shown, in his Analogy, 
(part ii. c. 11,) that there can he no 6uch presumption 
against miracles as to render them, in any wise, incredible, 
hut what would conclude against such uncommon ap- 
pearances as comets, and against there being any such 
powers in nature as magnetism and electricity, so contrary 
to the properties of other bodies not endued with these 
powers. But he observes, " Take in the consideration of 
religion, or the moral system of the world, and then we 
see distinct, particular reasons for miracles, to afford man- 
kind instruction, additional to that of nature, and to attest 
the truth of it ; and our being able to discern reasons for 
them, gives a positive credibility to the history of them, in 
cases where those reasons hold." 

" It is impossible," says an oracle among modern unbe- 
lievers, (Voltaire,) "that a Being, infinitely wise, should 
make laws in order to violate them. He would not derange 
the machine of his own construction, unless it were for its 
improvement. But as a God, he hath, without doubt, made 
it as perfect as possible ; or, if he had foreseen any imper- 
fection likely to result from it, he would surety have pro- 
vided against it from the beginning, and not be under a 
necessity of changing it afterward. He is both unchangeable 
and omnipotent, and therefore can neither have any desire 
to alter the course of nature, nor have any need to do so." 

" This argument," says Dr. Van Mildert, " is grounded on 
a misconception or a misrepresentation of the design of 
miracles, which is not the remedy of any physical defect, 
not to rectify any original or accidental imperfections in 
the laws of nature, but to manifest to the world the inter- 
position of the Almighty, for especial purposes of a moral 
kind. It is simply to make known to mankind that it is he 
who addresses them, and that whatever is accompanied 
with this species of evidenco comes from him, and claims 
their implicit belief and obedience. The perfection, there- 
fore, or imperfection, of the laws of nature has nothing to 
do with the question. All nature is subservient to the will 
of God; and as his existence and attributes are manifest in 
the ordinary course of nature, so, in the extraordinary 
work of miracles, his will is manifested by the display of 
his absolute sovereignty over the course of nature. Thus, 
in both instances, the Creator is glorified in his works; and 
it is made to appear, that 'by him all things consist,' and 
that 'for his pleasure they are, and were created.' This 
seems a sufficient answer to any reasoning, a priori, against 
miracles, from their supposed inconsistency with the Divine 
perfections." 



CH. IX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



47 



Granting then the possibility of miraculous 
'nterposition on the part of the great Author of 

ature, on special occasions, and for great ends, 

n what way and under what circumstances does 

such an interposition authenticate the Divine 

mission of those who profess to be sent by him 

to teach his will to mankind ? 

The argument is, that as the known and esta- 
blished course of nature has been fixed by him 
who is the Creator and Preserver of all things, 
it can never be violated, departed from, or con- 
trolled, but either immediately by himself, or 
mediately by other beings at his command, and 
by his assistance or permission ; for if this be 
not allowed, we must deny either the Divine om- 
nipotence, or his natural government; and if 
these be allowed, the other follows. Every real 
miracle is a work of God, done specially by him, 
by his permission, or with his concurrence. 

In order to distinguish a real miracle, it is 
necessary that the common course of nature 
should be understood ; for without some ante- 
cedent knowledge of the operation of physical 
causes, an event might be deemed miraculous 
which was merely strange, and through our igno- 
rance inexplicable. Should an earthquake happen 
in a country never before visited by such a 
calamity within the memory of man, by the 
ignorant it might be considered miraculous : 
whereas an earthquake is a regular effect of the 
present established laws of nature. 

But as the course of nature and the operation 
of physical causes are but partially understood, 
and will perhaps never be fully comprehended by 
the most inquiring minds, it seems necessary 
that such miracles as are intended to authenticate 
any religious system, promulged for the com- 
mon benefit of mankind, should be effects pro- 
duced upon objects whose properties have been 
the subject of common and long observation: 
that it should be contrary to some known laws 
by which the objects in question have been uni- 
formly and long observed to be governed ; or 
that the proximate cause of the effect should be 
known to have no adequate power or adaptation 
to produce it. When these circumstances occur 
separately, and more especially when combined, 
a sufficient antecedent acquaintance with the 
course of nature exists to warrant the conclusion 
that the effect is miraculous, or, in other words, 
that it is produced by the special interposition 
of God. 

Whether the works ascribed to Moses and to 
Christ, and recorded in Scripture, were actually 
performed by them, will be considered in another 
place; but here it is proper to observe, that, 
assuming their actual occurrence, they arc of 
such a nature as to leave no reasonable doubt of 



their miraculous character ; and from them we 
may borrow a few instances for the sake of illus- 
trating the preceding observations, without pre- 
judging the argument. 

The rod cast from the hand of Moses becomes 
a serpent. Here the subject was well known : it 
was a rod, a branch separated from a tree, and 
it was obviously contrary to the known and 
established course of nature that it should 
undergo so signal a transformation. If the fact 
can be proved, the miracle must therefore follow. 

The sea is parted at the stretching out of 
the rod of Moses. Here is no adaptation of 
the proximate cause to produce the effect, which 
was obviously in opposition to the known quali- 
ties of water. A recession of the sea from the 
shores would have taken down the whole mass 
of water from the head of the gulf; but here 
the waters divide, and, contrary to their nature, 
stand up on each side, leaving a passage for the 
host of Israel. 

It is in the nature of clouds to be carried about 
by the wind ; but the cloud which went before 
the Israelites in the wilderness, rested on their 
tabernacle, moved when they were commanded 
to march, and directed their course : rested when 
they were to pitch their tents, and was a pillar 
of direction by day ; and, by night, when it is 
the nature of clouds to become dark, the rays 
of the sun no longer permeating them, this cloud 
shone with the brightness of fire. 

In all these cases, if the facts be established, 
there can be no doubt as to their miraculous 
character. 

"Were a physician instantly to give sight to a 
blind man, by anointing his eyes with a chemical 
preparation, to the nature and qualities of which 
we were absolute strangers, the cure would to 
us, undoubtedly, be wonderful; but we could 
not pronounce it miraculous, because it might be 
the physical effect of the operation of the unguent 
upon the eye. But were he to give sight to his 
patient, merely by commanding him to receive it, 
or by anointing his eyes with spittle, we should, 
with the utmost confidence, pronounce the cure 
to be a miracle ; because we know perfectly that 
neither the human voice nor human spittle has, 
by the established constitution of things, any 
such power over the diseases of the eye. No 
one is ignorant that persons, apparently dead, 
are often restored to their families and friends, 
by being treated, during suspended animation, 
in the manner recommended by the Humane- 
Society. To tho vulgar, and sometimes even to 
men of science, these resuscitations appear ver\ 
wonderful; but as they aro known to be effected 
by physical agency, they cannot be considered 
as miraculous deviations from the laws of nature. 



48 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



On the other hand, no one could doubt of his 
having witnessed a real miracle, who had seen a 
person that had been four days dead, come alive 
out of the grave at the call of another, or who 
had even beheld a person exhibiting all the com- 
mon evidences of death, instantly resuscitated, 
merely by being desired to live." — Gleig's edition 
of Stackhouse's History of the Bible, vol. iii., p. 241. 

In all such instances, the common course of 
nature is sufficiently known to support the con- 
clusion, that the power which thus interferes 
with and controls it, and produces effects to 
which the visible, natural causes are known not 
to be adequate, is God. 1 

But it is also necessary, in order to prove that 
even these miraculous events are authentications 
of a Divine mission, that a direct connection 
between the power of God, exerted in a miracu- 
lous act, and the messenger and his message, 
should be established. 

The following circumstances would appear 
sufficiently to establish such a connection: 1. 
When the miracles occur at the time when he 
who professes to have a Divine mission from God 
is engaged in making known the will of God to 
mankind by communicating the revelation he has 
received, and performing other acts connected 
with his office. 2. When, though they are works 
above human power, they are wrought by the 
messenger himself, or follow his volitions. The 
force of this argument may be thus exhibited : 

When such unequivocal miracles as those we 
have pointed out occur only in connection with 
an actual profession, by certain persons, that 
they have a Divine authority to teach and com- 
mand mankind, this is a strong presumption that 
the works are wrought by God in order to au- 
thenticate this pretension; but when they are 
performed mediately by these persons themselves, 
by their own will, and for the express purpose 
of establishing their mission, inasmuch as they 
are allowed to be real miracles, which no power 
but that of God can effect, it is then clear that 
God is with them, and that his cooperation is an 
authenticating and visible seal upon their com- 
mission. 

It is not necessary, in this stage, to specify 
the rules by which real and pretended miracles 
are to be distinguished ; nor to inquire whether 



1 It is observable, tbat no miracles appear to bare been 
wrougbt by human agency before the time of Moses and 
Aaron, in whose days not only had the world long existed, 
but consequently the course of nature had been observed 
for a long period; and further, these first miracles were 
wrought among a refined and observant people, who had 
their philosophers, to whom the course of nature and the 
operation of physical causes were subject? of keen investi- 
gation. 



[PART I. 

the Scriptures allow that, in some cases, miracles 
have been wrought in support of falsehood. 
Both these subjects will be examined when we 
come to speak of the miracles of Scripture. The 
ground established is, that miracles are possible ; 
and that, when real miracles occur under the 
circumstances we have mentioned, they are satis- 
factory evidences of a Divine mission. 

But though this should be allowed, and also 
that the eye-witnesses of such miracles would be 
bound to admit the proof, it has been made a 
question whether their testimony affords sufficient 
reason to others to admit the fact that such 
events actually took place, and consequently 
whether we are bound to acknowledge the autho- 
rity of that mission, in attestation of which the 
miracles are said to have been wrought. 

If this be admitted, the benefits of a revelation 
must be confined to those who witnessed its 
attestation by miracle, or similar attestations 
must be afforded to every individual : for, as no 
revelation can be a benefit unless it possess 
Divine authority, which alone can infallibly mark 
the distinction between truth and error, should 
the authentication be partial, the benefit of the 
communication of an infallible doctrine must 
also be partial. We are all so much interested 
in this, because no religious system can plead 
the authentication of perpetual miracle, that it 
deserves special consideration. Either this prin- 
ciple is unsound, or we must abandon all hope 
of discovering a religion of Divine authority. 

As miracles are facts, they, like other facts, 
may be reported to others ; and, as in the case 
of the miracles in question, bearing the charac- 
ters which have been described, the competency 
of any man of ordinary understanding to deter- 
mine whether they were actually wrought cannot 
be doubted : if the witnesses are credible, it is 
reasonable that their testimony should be ad- 
mitted ; for if the testimony be such as, in mat- 
ters of the greatest moment to us in the affairs 
of common life, we should not hesitate to act 
upon : if it be such that, in the most important 
affairs, men do uniformly act upon similar or 
even weaker testimony : it would be mere per- 
verseness to reject it in the case in question; 
and would argue rather a disinclination to the 
doctrine which is thus proved, than any rational 
doubt of the sufficiency of the proof itself. 

The objection is put in its strongest form by 
Mr. Hume, in his Essays, and the substance of it 
is, — Experience is the ground of the credit we 
give to human testimony ; but this experience is 
by no means constant, for we often find men 
prevaricate and deceive. On the other hand, it- 
is experience, in like manner, which assures us of 
those laws of nature, in the violation of which 



CH. IX.] 



EVIDENCES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



49 



the notion of a miracle consists ; bnt this expe- 
rience is constant and uniform. A miracle is an 
event which, from its nature, is inconsistent with 
our experience ; but the falsehood of testimony- 
is not inconsistent with experience: it is contrary 
to experience that miracles should be true, but 
not contrary to experience that testimony should 
be false; and, therefore, no human testimony 
can, in any case, render them credible. 

This argument has been met at large by many 
authors, 1 but the following extracts afford ample 
refutation : 

"The principle of this objection is, that it is 
contrary to experience that a miracle should be 
true ; but not contrary to experience that testi- 
mony should be false. 

"Now there appears a small ambiguity in the 
term 'experience,' and in the phrases 'contrary 
to experience,' or 'contradicting experience,' 
which it may be necessary to remove in the first 
place. Strictly speaking, the narrative of a fact 
is then only contrary to experience, when the fact 
is related to have existed at a time and place, at 
which time and place, we, being present, did not 
perceive it to exist: as if it should be asserted 
that, in a particular room, and at a particular 
hour of a certain day, a man was raised from 
the dead ; in which room, and at the time speci- 
fied, we, being present and looking on, perceived 
no such event to have taken place. 

"Here the assertion is contrary to experience, 
properly so called; and this is a contrariety 
which no evidence can surmount. It matters 
nothing whether the fact be of a miraculous 
nature or not. But although this be the expe- 
rience and the contrariety which Archbishop 
Tillotson alleged in the quotation with which 
Mr. Hume opens his Essay, it is certainly not 
that experience, nor that contrariety, which Mr. 
Hume himself intended to object. And, short 
of this, I know no intelligible signification which 
can be affixed to the term ' contrary to experi- 
ence,' but one, viz., that of not having ourselves 
experienced any thing similar to the thing related, 
or such things not being generally experienced 
by others. I say, 'not generally ;' for to state, 
concerning the fact in question, that no such 
thing was ever experienced, or that universal 
experience is against it, is to assume the subject 
of the controversy. 

" Now the improbability which arises from the 
want (for this properly is a want, not a contra- 
diction) of experience, is only equal to the 

1 See Campbell's Dissertation on Miracles ; Price's Four 
Dissertations, Diss. 4; Paley's Evidences; Adam's Essay on 
Miracles; Bishop Douglass's Criterion ; DwianT's Theology, 
vol. ii.; Dr. Key's Norrisian Lectures, vol. i.; Van Mildert's 
Boyle's Lectures, vol. i. 



probability there is, that if the thing were true, 
we should experience things similar to it, or that 
such things would be generally experienced. 
Suppose it then to be true that miracles were 
wrought upon the first promulgation of Chris- 
tianity, when nothing but miracles could decide 
its authority, is it certain that such miracles 
would be repeated so often, and in so many 
places, as to become objects of general experi- 
ence? Is it a probability approaching to cer- 
tainty? Is it a probability of any great strength 
or force ? Is it such as no evidence can en- 
counter ? And yet this probability is the exact 
converse, and therefore the exact measure, of the 
improbability which arises from the want of 
experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as 
invincible by human testimony. 

"It is not like alleging a new law of nature, 
or a new experiment in natural philosophy; 
because, when these are related, it is expected 
that, under the same circumstances, the same 
effect will follow universally ; and in proportion 
as this expectation is justly entertained, the want 
of a corresponding experience negatives the 
history. But to expect concerning a miracle 
that it should succeed upon a repetition, is to 
expect that which would make it cease to be a 
miracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, 
and would totally destroy the use and purpose 
for which it was wrought. 

"The force of experience, as an objection to 
miracles, is founded in the presumption either 
that the course of nature is invariable, or that, 
if it be ever varied, variations will be frequent 
and general. Has the necessity of this alterna- 
tive been demonstrated ? Permit us to call the 
course of nature the agency of an intelligent 
Being ; and is there any good reason for judging 
this state of the case to be probable ? Ought we 
not rather to expect that such a Being, on occa- 
sions of peculiar importance, may interrupt the 
order which he had appointed, yet that such 
occasions should return seldom : that these inter- 
ruptions, consequently, should be confined to the 
experience of a few : that the want of it, there- 
fore, in many, should be matter neither of sur- 
prise nor objection ? 

"But as a continuation of the argument from 
experience, it is said that, when we advance 
accounts of miracles, we assign effects without 
causes, or we attribute effects to causes inade- 
quate to the purpose, or to causes, of the ope ra- 
tion of which we have no experience. Of what 
causes, wo may ask, and of what effects, does t ho 
objection speak? If it bo answered, that when 
we ascribe the cure of the palsy to a touch, of 
blindness to the anointing of the eyes with olay, 
or tho raising of the dead to a word, we lay our- 



50 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



selves open to this imputation: we reply, that 
we ascribe no such effects to such causes. We 
perceive no virtue or energy in these things more 
than in other things of the same kind. They are 
merely signs to connect the miracle with its end. 
The effect we ascribe simply to the volition of 
the Deity ; of whose existence and power, not to 
say of whose presence and agency, we have pre- 
vious and independent proof. We have, there- 
fore, all we seek for in the works of rational 
agents — a sufficient power, and an adequate 
motive. In a word, once believe that there is a 
God, and miracles are not incredible ! 

"Mr. Hume states the case of miracles to be 
a contest of opposite improbabilities : that is to 
say, a question whether it be more improbable 
that the miracle should be true, or the testimony 
false ; and this, I think, a fair account of the 
controversy. But herein I remark a want of 
argumentative justice, that, in describing the 
improbability of miracles, he suppresses all those 
circumstances of extenuation which result from 
our knowledge of the existence, power, and dis- 
position of the Deity ; his concern in the crea- 
tion; the end answered by the miracle; the 
importance of that end, and its subserviency to 
the plan pursued in the works of nature. As 
Mr. Hume has represented the question, mira- 
cles are alike incredible to him who is previously 
assured of the constant agency of a Divine 
Being, and to him who believes that no such 
Being exists in the universe. They are equally 
incredible, whether related to have been wrought 
upon occasions the most deserving, and for pur- 
poses the most beneficial, or for no assignable 
end whatever, or for an end confessedly trifling 
or pernicious. This surely cannot be a correct 
statement. In adjusting also the other side of 
the balance, the strength and weight of testi- 
mony, this author has provided an answer to 
every possible accumulation of historical proof, 
by telling us that we are not obliged to explain 
how the story or the evidence arose. Now I 
think that we are obliged — not, perhaps, to show 
by positive accounts how it did, but by a pro- 
bable hypothesis how it might so happen. The 
existence of the testimony is a phenomenon : the 
truth of the fact solves the phenomenon. If we 
reject this solution, we ought to have some other 
to rest in; and none, even by our adversaries, 
can be admitted which is not consistent with the 
principles that regulate human affairs and human 
conduct at present, or which makes men then to 
have been a different kind of beings from what 
they are now. 

" But the short consideration which, independ- 
ently of every other, convinces me that there is 
no solid foundation for Mr. Hume's conclusion, 



is the following : — When a theorem is proposed 
to a mathematician, the first thing he does with 
it is to try it upon a simple case ; and if it pro- 
duce a false result, he is sure that there is some 
mistake in the demonstration. Now, to proceed 
in this way with what may be called Mr. Hume's 
theorem: — If twelve men, whose probity and 
good sense I had long known, should seriously 
and circumstantially relate to me an account of 
a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in 
which it was impossible that they should be de- 
ceived — if the governor of the country, hearing 
a rumor of this account, should call these men 
into his presence, and offer them a short proposal, 
either to confess the imposture, or submit to be 
tied up to a gibbet — if they should refuse with 
one voice to acknowledge that there existed 
any falsehood or imposture in the case — if this 
threat were communicated to them separately, 
yet with no different effect — if it was at last ex- 
ecuted — if I myself saw them, one after another, 
consenting to be racked, burned, or strangled, 
rather than give up the truth of their account, 
still, if Mr. Hume's rule be my guide, I am not 
to believe them. Now, I undertake to say that 
there exists not a skeptic in the world who would 
not believe them, or who would defend such 
incredulity." — Palet's Evidences, Preparatory 
Considerations. 

" The essayist," says the Bishop of Llandaff, 
"who has most elaborately drawn out this argu- 
ment, perplexes the subject by attempting to 
adjust, in a sort of metaphysical balance of his 
own invention, the degrees of probability result- 
ing from what he is pleased to call opposite expe- 
riences, viz., the experience of men's veracity on 
the one hand, and the experience of the firm and 
unalterable constitution of the laws of nature on 
the other. But the fallacy in this mode of rea- 
soning is obvious. For, in the first place, mira- 
cles can at most only be contrary to the expe- 
rience of those who never saw them performed : 
to say, therefore, that they are contrary to general 
experience, (including, as it should seem, the 
experience even of those who profess to have 
seen and to have examined them,) is to assume 
the very point in question. And, in the next 
place, it is equally fallacious to allege against 
them the experience of the unalterable consti- 
tution of the laws of nature ; because, unless the 
fact be previously investigated whether those 
laws have ever been altered or suspended, this is 
likewise a gratuitous assumption. 

"In truth, this boasted balance of probabili- 
ties could only be employed with effect in the 
cause of infidelity by counterpoising, against the 
testimony of those who professed to have seen 
miracles, the testimony of those (if any such 



CH. IX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 



51 



were to be found) who, under the circumstances, 
and with the same opportunities of forming a 
judgment, professed to have been convinced 
that the things which they saw were not mira- 
cles, but mere impostures and delusions. Here 
would be indeed experience against experience ; 
and a skeptic might be well employed in estimat- 
ing the comparative weight of the testimony on 
either side, in order to judge of the credibility 
or incredibility of the things proposed to his 
belief. But when he weighs only the experience 
of those to whom the opportunity of judging of 
a miracle by personal observation has never 
been afforded, against the experience of those 
who declare themselves to be eye-witnesses of 
the fact, instead of opposite experiences, properly 
so called, he is only balancing total inexperience 
on the one hand, against positive experience on 
the other. 

"Nor will it avail any thing to say that this 
particular inexperience of those who have never 
seen miracles is compensated by their general 
experience of the unalterable course of nature. 
For, as we have already observed, this is alto- 
gether a mere petitio principii. It is arguing 
upon a supposition wholly incapable of proof, 
that the course of nature is indeed so unalterably 
fixed that even God himself, by whom its laws 
were ordained, cannot, when he sees fit, suspend 
their operation. 

" There is, therefore, a palpable fallacy, (how- 
ever a subtle metaphysician may attempt to dis- 
guise it by ingenious sophistry,) in representing 
the experience of mankind as being opposite to the 
testimony on which our belief of miracles is 
founded. For, the opposite experiences, as they 
are called, are not contradictory to each other, 
since 'there is' (as has been justly observed) 'no 
inconsistency in believing them both.' A miracle 
necessarily supposes an established and generally 
unaltered (though not unalterable) course of 
things ; for in its interception of such a course 
lies the very essence of a miracle, as here under- 
stood. Our experience, therefore, of the course 
of nature leads us to expect its continuance, and 
to act accordingly ; but it does not set aside any 
proofs, from valid testimony, of a deviation from 
it ; neither can our being personally unacquainted 
with a matter of fact which took place a thou- 
sand years ago, or in a distant part of the world, 
warrant us in disbelieving the testimony of per- 
sonal witnesses of the fact. Common sense re- 
volts at the absurdity of considering one man's 
ignorance or inexperience as a counterpoise to 
another man's knowledge and experience of a 
matter of fact. Yet on no bettor foundation 
docs this favorite argument of infidels appear to 
rest." 



The substance of Dr. Campbell's answer to 
Mr. Hume's argument has been thus given : 

"The evidence arising from human testimony 
is not solely derived from experience : on the 
contrary, testimony has a natural influence on 
belief antecedent to experience. The early and 
unlimited assent given to testimony by children 
gradually contracts as they advance in life : it 
is, therefore, more consonant to truth to say that 
our diffidence in testimony is the result of expe- 
rience, than that our faith in it has this founda- 
tion. Besides, the uniformity of experience in 
favor of any fact is not a proof against its being 
reversed in a particular instance. The evidence 
arising from the single testimony of a man of 
known veracity, will go farther to establish a 
belief of its being actually reversed. If his testi- 
mony be confirmed by a few others of the same 
character, we cannot withhold our assent to 
the truth of it. Now, though the operations 
of nature are governed by uniform laws, and 
though we have not the testimony of our senses 
in favor of any violation of them, still, if in 
particular instances we have the testimony of 
thousands of our fellow-creatures, and those, 
too, men of strict integrity, swayed by no mo- 
tives of ambition or interest, and governed by 
the principles of common sense, that they wero 
actually witnesses of these violations, the consti- 
tution of our nature obliges us to believe them. 

"Mr. Hume's reasoning is founded upon too 
limited a view of the laws and course of nature. 
If we consider things duly, we shall find that 
lifeless matter is utterly incapable of obeying 
any laws, or of being endued with any powers ; 
and, therefore, what is usually called the course 
of nature can be nothing else than the arbitrary 
will and pleasure of God, acting continually upon 
matter according to certain rules of uniformity, 
still bearing a relation to contingencies. So that 
it is as easy for the Supreme Being to alter what 
"men think the course of nature, as to preserve it. 
Those effects which are produced on the world 
regularly and indesinently, and which are usually 
termed the works of nature, prove the constant 
providence of the Deity: those, on the contrary, 
which, upon any extraordinary occasion, are 
produced in such a manner as it is manifest 
could not have been either by human power, or 
by what is called chance, prove undeniably the 
immediate interposition of the Deity on that 
special occasion. God, it must be recolleoted, is 
tho governor of the moral as well as of the 
physical world ; and sinco the moral well-being 
of the universe is of more oonsequenoe than its 
physical order and regularity, it follows obvi- 
ously, that tho laws, conformably wish which the 
matorial world seems generally to be regulated, 



52 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



are subservient and may occasionally yield to 
the laws by which the moral -world is governed. 
Although, therefore, a miracle is contrary to the 
usual course of nature, (and would indeed lose ! 
its beneficial effect if it were not so,) it cannot 
thence be inferred that it is 'a violation of the 
laws of nature,' allowing the term to include a 
regard to moral tendencies. The laws by which 
a wise and holy God governs the world, cannot 
(unless he is pleased to reveal them) be learnt 
in any other way than from testimony; since, \ 
on this supposition, nothing but testimony can ' 
bring us acquainted with the whole series of his 
dispensations ; and this kind of knowledge is j 
absolutely necessary previously to our correctly ] 
inferring those laws. Testimony, therefore, must 
be admitted as constituting the principal means 
of discovering the real laws by which the uni- 
verse has been regulated: that testimony assures 
us that the apparent course of nature has often 
been interrupted to produce important moral 
effects ; and we must not at random disregard 
such testimony, because in estimating its credi- 
bility we ought to look almost infinitely more at 
the moral than at the physical circumstances 
connected with any particular event." 1 

Such evidence as that of miracles, transmitted 
to distant times by satisfactory testimony, a 
revelation may then receive. The fitness of this 
kind of evidence to render that revelation an 
instant and universal benefit, wherever it comes, 
is equally apparent ; for, as Mr. Locke observes, 
(Reasonableness of Christianity.) "the bulk of 
mankind have not leisure nor capacity for demon- 
stration, nor can they carry a train of proofs ; 
but as to the Worker of miracles, all his com- 
mands become principles : there needs no other 
proof of what he says, but that he said it, and 
there needs no more than to read the inspired 
books to be instructed." 

Having thus shown that miracles are possible ; 



1 It would be singular, did we not know the inconsisten- 
cies of error, that Mr. Hume himself, as Dr. Campbell shows, 
gives up his own argument. 

"I own," these are his words, "there may possibly be 
miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of 
such a kind as to admit a proof from human testimony, 
though perhaps [in this he is modest enough, he avers 
nothing-^per/iaps] it will be impossible to find any such in 
all the records of history." To this declaration he subjoins 
the following supposition: — "Suppose all authors, in all 
languages, agree that from the first of January, 1600, there 
was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days : 
suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is 
still strong and lively among the people : that all travellers 
who return from foreign countries bring us accounts of the 
same traditions, without the least variation or contradic- 
tion : it is evident that our present philosophers, instead of 
doubting of that fact, ought to receive it for certain, and 
ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived." 
Couid one imagine that the person who had made the above 



that under certain circumstances their reality 
may be ascertained ; that, when accompanied by 
other circumstances which we have also men- 
tioned, they are connected with a definite end, 
and connect themselves with the Divine mission 
of those who perform them, and with the truth 
of their doctrine ; that as facts they are the 
subjects of hnman testimony, and that credible 
testimony respecting them lays a competent 
foundation for our belief in them, and in those 
revelations which they are clearly designed to 
attest, — the way is prepared for the consideration 
of the miracles recorded in Scripture. 

Prophecy is the other great branch of the 
external evidence of a revelation ; and the nature 
and force of that kind of evidence may fitly be 
pointed out before either the miracles or prophe- 
cies of the Bible are examined ; for by ascertain- 
ing the general principles on which this kind of 
evidence rests, the consideration of particular 
cases will be rendered more easy and satisfactory. 
Xo argument d priori against the possibility of 
prophecy can be attempted by any one who 
believes in the existence and infinitely perfect 
nature of God. 

The infidel author of "The Moral Philosopher," 
indeed, rather insinuates than attempts fully to 
establish a dilemma with which to perplex those 
who regard prophecy as one of the proofs of a 
Pivine revelation. He thinks that either pro- 
phecy must respect "events necessary, as de- 
pending upon necessary causes, which might be 
certainly foreknown and predicted;" or that, if 
human actions are free, and effects contingent, 
the possibility of prophecy must be given up, as 
it implies foreknowledge, which, if granted, 
would render them necessary. 

The first part of this objection would be 
allowed, were there no predictions to be adduced 
in favor of a professed revelation, except such as 
related to events which human experience has 

acknowledgment, a person, too, who is justly allowed, by 
all who are acquainted with his writings, to possess uncom- 
mon penetration and philosophical abilities, that this were 
the same individual who had so short a while before affirmed 
that "a miracle," or a violation of the course of nature, 
" supported by any human testimony, is more properly a 
subject of derision than of argument ?" 

The objection " that successive testimony diminishes, and 
that so rapidly as to command no assent after a few centu- 
ries at most," deserves not so full a refutation, since it is 
evident that " testimony continues credible so long as it is 
transmitted with all those circumstances and conditions 
which first procured it a certain degree of merit among 
men. "Who complains of a decay of evidence in relation to 
the actions of Alexander, Hannibal, Pompey, or Ca?sar? 
We never hear persons wishing they had lived ages earlier, 
that they might have had better proof that Cyrus was the 
conqueror of Babylon; that Darius was beaten in several 
battles by Alexander," etc. — See Dr. 0. Gregory's Letters on 
the Christian Revelation, vol. i., p. 196. 



CH. IX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



53 



taught to be dependent upon some cause, the 
existence and necessary operation of which are 
within the compass of human knowledge. But 
to foretell such events woxild not be to prophesy, 
any more than to say that it will be light to- 
morrow at noon, or that on a certain day and 
hour next year there will occur an eclipse of the 
sun or moon, when that event has been previously 
ascertained by astronomical calculation. 

If, however, it were allowed, that all events 
depended upon a chain of necessary causes, yet, 
in a variety of instances, the argument from 
prophecy would not be at all affected ; for the 
foretelling of necessary results in certain circum- 
stances is beyond human intelligence, because 
they can be known only to Him by whose power 
those necessary causes on which they depend 
have been arranged, and who has prescribed 
the times of their operation. To borrow a case, 
for the sake of illustration, from the Scriptures, 
though the claims of their predictions are not 
now in question : let us allow that such a pro- 
phecy as that of Isaiah respecting the taking of 
Babylon by Cyrus was uttered, as it purports to 
be, more than a century before Cyrus was born, 
and that all the actions of Cyrus and his army, 
and those of the Babylonian monarch and his 
people, were necessitated : is it to be maintained 
that the chain of necessitating causes running 
through more than a century could be traced by 
a human mind, so as to describe the precise 
manner in which that fatality would unfold itself, 
even to the turning of the river, the drunken 
carousal of the inhabitants, and the neglect of 
shutting the gates of the city ? This, being by 
uniform and universal experience known to be 
above all human apprehension, would therefore 
prove that the prediction was made in conse- 
quence of a communication from a superior and 
Divine Intelligence. Were events therefore sub- 
jected to invincible fate and necessity, there 
might nevertheless be prophecy. 

The other branch of the dilemma is founded 
on the notion that, if we allow the moral freedom 
of human actions, prophecy is impossible, because 
certain foreknowledge is contrary to that freedom, 
and fixes and renders the event necessary. 

To this the reply is, that the objection is 
founded on a false assumption, the Divine fore- 
knowledge having no more influence in effect- 
uating, or making certain any event, than human 
foreknowledge in the degree in which it may 
exist; there being no moral causality at all in 
knowledge. This lies in the will, which is the 
determining, acting principle in every agent; or, 
as Dr. Samuel Clarke has expressed it in answer 
to another kind of objector, " God's infallible 
judgment concerning contingent truths docs no 



more alter the nature of the things and cause 
them to be necessary, than our judging right at any 
time concerning a contingent truth, makes it 
cease to be contingent; or than our science of a 
present truth is any cause of its being either true 
or present. Here, therefore, lies the fallacy of 
our author's argument. Because from God's 
foreknowing the existence of things depending 
upon a chain of necessary causes, it follows that 
the existence of the things must needs be neces- 
sary, therefore from God's judging infallibly 
concerning things which depend not on necessary 
but free causes, he concludes that these things 
also depend not upon free but necessary causes. 
Contrary, I say, to the supposition in the argu- 
ment ; for it must not be first supposed that things 
are in their own nature necessary ; but from the 
power of judging infallibly concerning free events, 
it must be proved that things, otherwise supposed 
free, will thereby unavoidably become necessary." 
The whole question lies in this, Is the simple 
knowledge of an action a necessitating cause of 
the action? And the answer must be in the 
negative, as every man's consciousness will assure 
him. If the causality of influence, either imme- 
diate, or by the arrangement of compelling 
events, be mixed up with this, the ground is 
shifted; and it is no longer a question which 
respects simple prescience. 

This metaphysical objection having no founda- 
tion in truth, the force of the evidence arising 
from predictions of events, distant, and out of 
the power of human sagacity to anticipate, and 
uttered as authentications of a Divine commis- 
sion, is apparent. "Such predictions, whether 
in the form of declaration, description, or repre- 
sentation of things future" as Mr. Boyle justly 
observes, "are supernatural things, and may 
properly be ranked among miracles." (Boyle's 
Christian Virtuoso.) For when, for instance, the 
events are distant many years or ages from the 
uttering of the prediction itself, depending on 
causes not so much as existing when the prophecy 
was spoken and recorded, and likewise upon 
various circumstances and a long arbitrary series 
of things, and the fluctuating uncertainties of 
human volitions, and especially when they depend 
not at all upon any external circumstances, nor 
upon any created being, but arise merely from 
the counsels and appointment of Clod himself — 
such events can be foreknown only by thai Being, 
one of whoso attributes is omniscience, and can 
be foretold by him only to whom the " Father <>i* 
lights" shall reveal thorn: so that whoever is 
manifestly endued with that prediotire power, 
must, in that instance, speak and act l>\ Divine 
inspiration, and what he pronounces of that kind 
must bo received as the word of God, nothing 



54 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART I. 



more being necessary to assure us of this, than 
credible testimony that such predictions were 
uttered before the event, or conclusive evidence 
that the records -which contain them are of the 
antiquity to which they pretend. (Vide Chap- 
man's Eusebius, p. 158: Cudworth's Intellect. 
Syst., p. 866: Vitringa in Isa., cap. 41.) 



CHAPTER X. 



THE EVIDENCES NECESSARY TO AUTHENTICATE A 
REVELATION INTERNAL EVIDENCE COLLATE- 
RAL EVIDENCE. 

The second kind of evidence, usually con- 
sidered as necessary for the attestation of a 
Divine revelation, is called internal evidence. 

This kind of evidence has been already de- 
scribed to be that which arises from the consider- 
ation of the doctrines taught, as being consistent 
with the character of God, and tending to pro- 
mote the virtue and happiness of man, the ends 
for which a revelation of the will of G-od was 
needed, and for which it must have been given, 
if it be considered as an act of grace and mercy. 

This subject, like the two branches of the 
external evidence, miracles and prophecy, involves 
important general principles ; and it may require 
to be the more carefully considered, as opinions 
have run into extremes. By some it has been 
doubted whether what is called "the internal 
evidence," that is, the excellence of the doctrines 
and tendency of a revelation, ought to be ranked 
with the leading evidence of miracles and pro- 
phecy, seeing that the proof from miracles and 
from prophecy is decisive and absolute. For the 
same reason, however, prophecy might be ex- 
cluded from the rank of leading evidence, inas- 
much as miracles of themselves are, in their 
evidence, decisive and absolute. If, however, it 
were contended, that proofs from miracles, pro- 
phecy, and internal evidence, are jointly neces- 
sary to constitute sufficient proof of the truth of 
a revelation, there would be reason to dispute 
the position, understanding by "sufficient evi- 
dence" that degree of proof which would render 
it highly unreasonable, perverse, and culpable 
in any one to reject the authority of the revela- 
tion. This evidence is afforded by miracles 
alone; for if there be any force at all in the 
argument from miracles, it goes to the full length 
of rational proof of a Divine attestation, and 
that both to him who personally witnesses the 
performance of a real miracle, and to whom it 
is credibly testified ; and nothing more is abso- 
lutely necessary to enforce a rational conviction. 
But if it should please the Divine Author of a 



revelation to superadd the further evidence of 
prophecy, and also that of the obvious truth, 
and' beneficial tendency, of many parts of this 
revelation, circumstances which must necessarily 
be often apparent, it ought not to be disregarded 
in the argument in its favor, nor thought of 
trifling import: since, though it may not be 
necessary to establish a rational and sufficient 
proof, it may have a secondary necessity, to 
arouse attention, to leave objectors more obviously 
without excuse, and also to accommodate the 
revelation to that variety which exists in the 
mental constitutions of men, one mind being ex- 
cited to attention, and disposed to conviction, more 
forcibly by one species of proof than by another. 

In strict propriety, therefore, miracles may be 
considered as the primary evidence of the truth 
of a revelation, and every other species of proof 
as confirmatory . Prophecy and the internal evi- 
dence are leading evidences, but neither of them 
stand in the foremost place. The same abun- 
dance of proof we perceive in nature, for the 
demonstration of the being and attributes of God. 
Proofs of the existence of a First Cause, almighty 
and infinitely wise, more than what is logically 
sufficient, surround us everywhere; but who 
can doubt, that if half the instances of infinite 
power and wisdom which are seen in the material 
universe were annihilated, there would not be 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate both these, as 
perfections of the Maker of the universe ? 

On the other hand, the proof drawn from the 
internal evidence by others has been placed first 
in order, and the force of the evidence from 
miracles and prophecy is by them made to de- 
pend upon the excellence of the doctrine which 
they are brought forward to confirm, and which 
ought first to be ascertained. Nothing, say they, 
is to be received as a revelation from God which 
does not contain doctrines worthy of the Divine 
character, and tending to promote the good of 
mankind. ' 'A necessary mark of a religion coming 
from God is, that the duties it enjoins are all 
such as are agreeable to our natural notions of 
God, and perfective of the nature and conducive 
to the happiness of man." (Dr. S. Clarke.) 

Now, though it must be instantly granted, 
that in a revelation from God there will be 
nothing contrary to his own character ; and that, 
when it is made in the way of a merciful dispen- 
sation, it will contain nothing but what tends to 
perfect the nature and promote the happiness 
of his creatures : it is clear, that to try a pro- 
fessed revelation by our own notions, as to what 
is worthy of God and beneficial to mankind, is 
to assume that, independent of a revelation, we 
know what God is, or we cannot say what is 
worthy or unworthy of him ; and that we know, 
too, the character, and relations, and wants of 



CH. X.] 

man so perfectly as to determine what is bene- 
ficial to him : in other words, this supposes that 
we are in circumstances not greatly to need 
supernatural instruction. 

Another objection to the internal evidence 
being made the primary test of a revelation is, 
that it renders the external testimony nugatory, 
or comparatively unimportant. "Surely," ob- 
serves a late ingenious writer, "in a system which 
purports to be a revelation from heaven, and to 
contain a history of God's dealings with men, 
and to develop truths with regard to the moral 
government of the universe, the knowledge and 
belief of which will lead to happiness here and 
hereafter, we may expect to find (if its pretensions 
are well founded) an evidence for its truth, which 
shall be independent of all external testimony." 
(Erskine on the Internal Evidence, etc.) If this 
be true, the utility of the evidence of miracles is 
rendered very questionable. It is either un- 
necessary, or it is subordinate and dependent; 
neither of which, by Christian divines at least, 
can be consistently maintained. The non-neces- 
sity of miracles cannot be asserted by them, be- 
cause they believe them to have been actually 
performed ; and that they are subordinate proofs, 
and dependent upon the sufficiency of the internal 
evidence, is contradicted by the whole tenor of 
the Scriptures, which represent them as being in 
themselves an absolute demonstration of the 
mission and doctrine of the prophets, at whose 
instance they were performed, and never direct 
us to regard tbeir doctrines as a test of the 
miracles. The miracles of Christ, in particular, 
were a demonstration, not a partial and con- 
ditional, but a complete and absolute demonstra- 
tion, of his mission from God; and "it may be 
observed, with respect to all the miracles of the 
New Testament, that their divinity, considered 
in themselves, is always either expressly asserted, 
or manifestly implied ; and they are accordingly 
urged as a decisive and absolute proof of the 
divinity of the doctrine and testimony of those 
who perform them, without ever taking into con- 
sideration the nature of the doctrine, or of the 
testimony to be confirmed." 

Against this mode of stating the internal evi- 
dence, there lies also this logical objection, that 
it is arguing in a circle ; — the miracles are proved 
by the doctrine, and then the doctrine by the mira- 
cles : an objection from which those who have 
adopted the notion cither of the superior or the co- 
ordinate rank of the internal evidence, have not, 
with all their ingenuity and effort, fairly escaped. 

Miracles must, therefore, be considered as 
the loading and absolute evidence- of a revela- 
tion from God; and "what to me," says a sen- 
sible writer, "is, a priori, a strong argument 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



55 



of their being so, is the manifest inconsistency 
of the other hypotheses with the very condition 
of that people for whose sake God should raise 
up at any time his extraordinary messengers, 
endued with such miraculous powers. For if 
God ever favors mankind with such a special 
revelation of his will, and instructions from 
heaven, in a way supernatural, it is certainly in 
that unhappy juncture when the principles and 
practices of mankind are so miserably depraved 
and corrupted, as to want the light and assist- 
ance of revelation extremely, and are (humanly 
speaking) utterly incorrigible without it. Now, 
to say that, in these particular circumstances, 
men are not to depend on any real miracles, 
but, before they admit them as evidence of the 
prophet's Divine mission, they must carefully 
examine his doctrine, to see if it be perfectly 
good and true, is either to suppose these people 
furnished with principles and knowledge requisite 
for that purpose — contrary, point blank, to the 
real truth of their case — or else it is to assert 
that they who are utterly destitute of principles 
and knowledge requisite for that work, must, 
nevertheless, undertake it without them, and 
judge of the truth of the prophet's doctrine and 
authority by their false principles of religion 
and morality; which, in short, is to fix them 
immovably where they are already, in old erro- 
neous principles, against any new and true ones 
that should be offered. Especially with the 
bulk of mankind, full of darkness and prejudice, 
this must unavoidably be the consequence ; and 
the more they wanted a reformation in principle, 
the less capable would they be of receiving it 
in this method. Thus, for instance: were a 
teacher sent from heaven, with signs and won- 
ders, to a nation of idolaters, and they previously 
instructed to regard no miracles of his whatso- 
ever, till they were fully satisfied of the goodness 
of his doctrine, it is easy to foresee by what 
rule they would prove his doctrine, and what 
success he would meet with among them. Add 
to this, what is likewise exceedingly material, 
the great delays and perplexities attending this 
way of proceeding. For if every article of 
doctrine must be discussed and scanned by ovcry 
person to whom it is offered, what slow advances 
would be made by a Divino revelation among 
such a people! Hundreds would probably be 
cut off before they came to the end of 
queries, and the prophet might grow decrepit 
with age, before ho gained twenty proselyti 
a nation." — Chapman's Eusebius. 

It is easy to discover the causes ■which have 
lod to these mistakes, as to the I if the 

internal evidence of a Divine revelation. 

In the first place, a hypothetic case has been 



56 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



assumed, and it has been asked, "If a doctrine, 
absurd and wicked, should be attested by mira- 
cles, is it to be admitted as Divine, upon their 
authority?" The answer is, that this is a case 
which cannot in the nature of things occur, 
and cannot, therefore, be made the basis of an 
argument. We have seen already that a real 
miracle can be wrought by none but God, or by 
his commission, because the contrary supposition 
would exclude him from the government of 
the world which he has made and preserves. 
Whenever a real miracle takes place, therefore, 
in attestation of any doctrine, that doctrine 
cannot be either unreasonable or impious ; and 
if it should appear so to us, after the reality of 
the miracle is ascertained, which is not probable 
ordinarily, our judgment must be erroneous. 
The miracle proves the doctrine, or the ground 
on which miracles are allowed to have any 
force of evidence at all, either supreme or 
subordinate, absolute or dependent, must be given 
up ; for their evidence consists in this — that they 
are the works of God. 

The second cause of the error has been, that 
the rational evidence of the truths contained 
in a revelation has been confounded with the 
authenticating evidence. When once an exhibi- 
tion of the character, plans, and laws of God 
is made, though in their nature totally undis- 
coverable, by human faculties, they carry to 
the reason of man, so far as they are of a nature 
to be comprehended by it, the demonstration 
which accompanies truth of any other kind. 
For as the eye is formed to receive light, the 
rational powers of man are formed to receive 
conviction when the congruity of propositions is 
made evident. This is rational, but it is not 
authenticating evidence. Let us suppose that 
there is no external testimony of miracles or 
prophecy vouchsafed to attest that the teacher, 
through whom we receive those doctrines which 
appear to us so sublime, so important, so true, 
received them from God, with a mission to im- 
part them to us. He himself has no means 
of knowing them to be from God, or of distin- 
guishing them from some happy train of thought, 
into which his mind has been carried by its own 
force ; nor if he had, have we any means of 
concluding that they are more than the opinions 
of a mind, superior in vigor and grasp to our 
own. They may be true, but they are not 
attested to be Divine. We have no guaranty 
of their infallible truth, because our own rational 
powers are not infallible, nor those of the most 
gifted human mind. Add then the external 
testimony, and we have the attestation required. 
The rational evidence of the doctrine is the same 
in both cases ; but the rational evidence, though 



to us it is, as far, and only as far, as we can 
claim infallibility for our judgment, the proof 
of the truth of the doctrine, is no proof at all that 
God has revealed it. In the external testimony 
alone that proof is found : the degree of rational 
evidence we have of the truth and excellency of 
the doctrine may be a further commendation 
of it to us, but it is no part of its authority. 

From this distinction, the relative importance 
of the external and the internal evidence of a 
revelation may be further illustrated. Rational 
evidence of the doctrines proposed to us, when 
it can be had, goes to establish their truth, so 
far as we can depend upon our judgment ; but 
the external testimony, if satisfactory, esta- 
blishes their Divine authority, and therefore their 
absolute truth, and leaves us no appeal. Still 
further, a revelation, dependent upon internal 
evidence only, could contain no doctrines, and 
enjoin no duties, but of which the evidence to 
our reason should be complete. The least objec- 
tion grounded on a plausible contrary reason 
would weaken their force, and the absence of a 
clear perception of their congruity with some 
previous principles, admitted as true, would be 
the absence of all evidence of their truth what- 
ever. On the other hand, a revelation, with 
rational proof of a Divine attestation, renders 
our instruction in many doctrines and duties 
possible, the rational evidence of whose truth is 
wanting; and as some doctrines may be true, 
and highly important to us, which are not 
capable of this kind of proof, that is, which are 
not so fully known as to be compared with any 
received propositions, and determined by them, 
our knowledge is, in this way, greatly enlarged : 
the benefits of revelation are extended ; and the 
whole becomes obligatory, and therefore efficient 
to moral purposes, because it bears upon it the 
seal of an infallible authority. 

The firmer ground on which a revelation, 
founded upon reasonable external proof of autho- 
rity, rests, is also obvious. The doctrines in 
which we need to be instructed are, the nature 
of God: our own relations to that invisible 
Being: his will concerning us: the means of 
obtaining or securing his favor: the principles 
of his government; and a future life. These, 
and others of a similar kind, involve great diffi- 
culties, as the history of moral knowledge among 
mankind sufficiently proves; and that not only 
among those who never had the benefits of the 
biblical revelation on these subjects, but among 
those who, not considering it as an authority, 
have indulged the philosophizing spirit, and 
judged of these doctrines merely by their ra- 
tional evidence. This, from the nature of things, 
appearing under different views to different 



CII. 



XI.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



57 



minds, has produced almost as much contra- 
riety of opinion among them as we find among ! 
the sages of pagan antiquity. The mere ra- I 
tional proof of the truth of such doctrines 
being therefore, from its nature, in many im- 
portant respects obscure, and liable to diver- I 
sity of opinion, would lay but a very preca- 
rious and shifting foundation for faith in any ' 
revelation from God suited to remove the igno- 
rance of man on points so important in doctrine, | 
and so essential to an efficient religion and 
morality. 

On the other hand, the process of obtaining a i 
rational proof of the Divine attestation of a 
doctrine, by miracles for instance, is of the most 
simple and decisive kind, and gives to unbelief 
the character of obvious perverseness and in- 
consistency. Perverseness, because there is a 
clear opposition of the will rather than of the 
judgment in the case ; inconsistency, because a 
much lower degree of evidence is, by the very 
objectors, acted upon in their most important 
concerns in life. For who that saw the dead 
raised to life, in an appeal to the Lord of life, in 
confirmation of a doctrine professing to be 
taught by his authority, but must, unless wilful 
perverseness interposed, acknowledge a Divine 
testimony ; and who that heard the fact reported 
on the testimony of honest men and competent 
observers, under circumstances in which no illu- 
sion can take place, but must be charged with 
inconsistency, should he treat the report with 
skepticism, when, upon the same kind and quan- 
tum of evidence, he would so credit any report 
as to his own affairs, as to risk the greatest 
interests upon it? In difficult doctrines, of a 
kind to give rise to a variety of opinions, the 
rational evidence is accompanied with doubt : in 
such a case as that of the miracle we have sup- 
posed, it rests on principles supported by the 
universal and constant experience of mankind : — 
1. That the raising of the dead is above human 
power: 2. That men, unquestionably virtuous 
in every other respect, are not likely to propa- 
gate a deliberate falsehood; and, 3. That it con- 
tradicts all the known motives to action in 
human nature, that they should do so, not only 
without advantage, but at the hazard of reproach, 
persecution, and death. The evidence of such 
an attestation is therefore as indubitable as these 
principles themselves. 

The fourth kind of evidence, by which a reve- 
lation from God may be confirmed, is the colla- 
teral: on which, at present, wo need not say 
more than adduce somo instances, merely to 
illustrate this kind of testimony. 

The collateral cvidenco of a revelation from 
God may be its agreement in principlo with 



every former revelation, should previous reve- 
lations have been vouchsafed — that it was ob- 
viously suited to the circumstances of the world 
at the time of its communication — that it is 
adapted to effect the great moral ends which it 
purposes, and has actually effected them — that 
if it contain a record of facts, as well as of 
doctrines, those historical facts agree with the 
credible traditions and histories of the same 
times — that monuments, either natural or insti- 
tuted, remain to attest the truth of its history — 
that adversaries have made concessions in its 
favor; and that, should it profess to be a uni- 
versal and ultimate revelation of the will and 
mercy of God to man, it maintains its adaptation 
to the case of the human race, and its efficiency, 
to the present day. These and many other 
circumstances may be ranked under the head 
of collateral evidence, and some of them will, 
in their proper place, be applied to the Holy 
Scriptures. 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE USE AND LIMITATION OF REASON IN RELIGION. 

Having pointed out the kind of evidence by 
which a revelation from God may be authenti- 
cated, and the circumstances under which it 
ought to produce conviction and enforce obedi- 
ence, it appears to be a natural order of pro- 
ceeding to consider the subject of the title of 
this chapter, inasmuch as evidence of this kind, 
and for this end, must be addressed to our 
reason, the only faculty which is capable of 
receiving it. But as to this office of our reason 
important limitations and rules must be assigned, 
it will be requisite to adduce and explain them. 

The present argument being supposed to be 
with one who believes in a God, the Lord and 
Governor of man, and that he is a Being of 
infinite perfections, our observations will have 
the advantage of certain first principles which 
that belief concedes. 

We have already adduced much presumptive 
evidence that a revelation of the will of God is 
essential to his moral government, and that such 
a revelation has actually been made. Wo have 
also further considered the kind and degree oi' 
evidence which is necessary to ratify it. The 
means by which a conviction of its truth is pro- 
duced, is the point before us. 

The subject to be examined is tho truth of a 
religious and moral system, professing to bo from 
God, though oommnnioated by men who plead 
his authority for its promulgation. If there ho 



58 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART I. 



any force in the preceding observations, we are 
not, in the first instance, to examine the doctrine, 
in order to determine, from our own opinion of 
its excellence, whether it be from God, (for to 
this, if we need a revelation, we are incompetent,) 
but we are to inquire into the credentials of the 
messengers, in quest of sufficient proof that God 
hath spoken to mankind by them. Should a 
slight consideration of the doctrine, either by its 
apparent excellence or the contrary, attract us 
strongly to this examination^ it is well; but 
whatever prejudices, for or against the doctrine, 
a report, or a hasty opinion of its nature and 
tendency, may inspire, our final judgment can 
only safely rest upon the proof which may be 
afforded of its Divine authority. If that be 
satisfactory, the case is determined, whether the 
doctrine be pleasing or displeasing to us. If 
sufficient evidence be not afforded, we are at 
liberty to receive or reject the whole or any part 
of it, as it may appear to us to be worthy of our 
regard ; for it then stands on the same ground 
as any other merely human opinion. We are, 
however, to beware that this is done upon a very 
solemn responsibility. 

The proof of the Divine authority of a system 
of doctrine communicated under such circum- 
stances, is addressed to our reason ; or, in other 
words, it must be reasonable proof that in this 
revelation there has been a direct and special 
interposition of God. 

On the principles, therefore, already laid 
down, • that though the rational evidence of a 
doctrine lies in the doctrine itself, the rational 
proof of the Divine authority of a doctrine must 
be external to that doctrine ; and that miracles 
and prophecy are appropriate and satisfactory 
attestations of such an authority whenever they 
occur, the use of human reason in this inquiry is 
apparent. The alleged miracles themselves are 
to be examined, to determine whether they are 
real or pretended, allowing them to have been 
performed : the testimony of witnesses is to be 
investigated, to determine whether they actually 
occurred ; and if this testimony has been put on 
record, we have also to determine whether the 
record was at first faithfully made, and whether 
it has been carefully and uncorruptedly pre- 
served. "With respect to prophecy, we are also 
to examine whether the professed prophecy be a 
real prediction of future events, or only an 
ambiguous and equivocal saying, capable of 
being understood in various ways : whether it 
relates to events which lie beyond the guess of 
wise and observing men : whether it was uttered 
so long before the events predicted, that they 
could not be anticipated in the usual order of 
things: whether it was publicly or privately 



uttered ; and whether, if put on record, that 
record has been faithfully kept. To these points 
must our consideration be directed; and to 
ascertain the strength of the proof is the import- 
ant province of our reason or judgment. 

The second use of reason respects the inter- 
pretation of the revelation thus authenticated; 
and here the same rules are to be applied as 
in the interpretation of any other statement or 
record; for as our only object, after the authen- 
ticity of the revelation is established, is to dis- 
cover its sense, or, in other words, to ascertain 
\ what is declared unto us therein by God, our 
reason or judgment is called to precisely the 
same office as when the meaning of any other 
] document is in question. The terms of the record 
\ are to be taken in their plain and commonly received 
| sense : — figures of speech are to be interpreted with 
\ reference to the local peculiarities of the country in 
which the agents who wrote the record resided: — 
idioms are to be understood according to the genius 
of the language employed: — if any allegorical or 
mystical discourses occur, the key to them must be 
sought in the book itself, and not in our own fancies : 
— what is obscure must be interpreted by that which 
is plain : — the scope and tenor of a discourse must 
be regarded, and no conclusion formed on passages 
detached from their context, except they are complete 
in their sense, or evidently intended as axioms and 
apophthegms. These, and other rules, which 
respect the time and place when the record was 
written ; the circumstances of the writer and of 
those to whom he immediately addressed him- 
self; local customs, etc., appear in this, and all 
other cases, so just and reasonable as to com- 
mend themselves to every sober man ; and we 
rightly use our reason in the interpretation of a 
received revelation, when we conduct our inqui- 
ries into its meaning by those plain common- 
sense rules which are adopted by all mankind 
when the meaning of other writings is to be 
ascertained. 

It has been added, as a rule of interpretation, 
that when a revelation is sufficiently attested, 
and in consequence of that admitted, nothing is 
to be deduced from it which is contrary to reason. 
As this rule is liable to be greatly misunderstood, 
and has sometimes been pushed to injurious 
consequences, we shall consider it at some length, 
and point out the sense in which it may be safelj' 
admitted. 

Some persons, who advocate this principle of in- 
terpretation, appear to confound the reason of man 
with the reason or nature of things, and the rela- 
tions which subsist among them. These, however, 
can be known fully to God alone ; and to use the 
term reason in this sense is the same as to use it 
in the sense of the reason of God — to an equality 



CIL XI.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



59 



with which human reason cannot aspire. It may 
be the reverse of Divine reason, or a faint radia- 
tion from it, but never can it be full and perfect 
as the reason of a mind of perfect knowledge. 
It is admitted that nothing can be revealed by 
God, as truth, contradictory of his knowledge, 
and of the nature of things themselves ; but it 
follows not from this that nothing should be con- 
tained in that revelation contradictory of the 
limited and often erring reason of man. 1 

Another distinction necessary to be made in 
order to the right application of this rule is, that 
a doctrine which cannot be proved by our reason, 
is not on that account contrary either to the 
nature of things, or even to reason itself. This 
is sometimes lost sight of, and that which has no 
evidence from our reason is hastily presumed to 
be against it. Now, rational investigation is a 
process by which we inquire into the truth or 
falsehood of any thing by comparing it with 
what we intuitively, or by experience, know to 
be true, or with that which we have formerly 
demonstrated to be so. "By reason," says 
Cicero, "we are led from things apprehended 
and understood, to things not apprehended." 
Rational proof, therefore, consists in the agree- 
ment or disagreement of that which is compared 
with truths already stipposed to be established. 
But there may be truths, the evidence of which 
can only be fully known to the Divine mind, and 
on which the reasoning or comparing faculty of 
an inferior nature cannot, from their vastness or 
obscurity, be employed; and such truths there 
must be in any revelation which treats of the 
nature and perfections of God — his will as to us 
— and the relations we stand in to him, and to 
another state of being. As facts and doctrines, 
they are as much capable of revelation as if the 
whole reason of things on which tliey are 
grounded were put into the revelation also ; but 
they may be revealed as authoritative declara- 
tions, of which the process of proof is hidden, 
either because it transcends our faculties, or for 



1 " It ia the error of those who contend that all necessary 
truth is discoverable or demonstrable by reason, that they 
affirm of human reason in particular, what is only true of 
reason in general, or of reason in tho abstract. To say 
that whatever is truo must bo either discoverable or 
demonstrable by reason, can only bo affirmed of an all- 
perfect reason ; and is, therefore, predicated of none but 
tin; Divine intellect. So that, unless it can bo shown that 
human reason is tho same in degreo, aa well as in kind, 
with Divino reason — i. e., commensurate with it as to its 
powers, and Squally Incapable of error — the Inference from 
reason In the abstract to human reason, Id manifestly in- 
conclusive. Nothing bioti to show the fallacy 
of this pa°d.e of arguing, than to urge the Indisputable 
truth, that God in wiser than man, and has endued man 
wiiii onlya portion of that faculty which he himself, and 
uono other beside him, possesses In absolute perfection." — 
Van MuDBRtfB Sermons ai Boyle't Lecture, 



other reasons ; and we have, therefore, no 
rational evidence of their truth further than we 
have rational evidence that they come from God, 
which is, in fact, a more powerful demonstration. 
That a revelation may contain truths of this 
transcendent nature, must be allowed by all who 
have admitted its necessity, if they would be 
consistent with themselves; for its necessity 
rests, in great part, upon the weakness of human 
reason. If our natural faculties could have 
reached the truths thus exhibited to us, there 
had been no need of supernatural instruction; 
and if it has been vouchsafed, the degree depends 
upon the Divine will, and he may give a doctrine 
with its reasons, or without them ; for surely the 
ground of our obligation to believe his word does 
not rest upon our perception of the rational evi- 
dence of the truths he requires us to believe. If 
doctrines then be given without the reasons on 
which they rest, that is, without any apparent 
agreement with what is already known — because 
the process of proof must, in many cases, be a 
comparison of that which is too vast to be fully 
apprehended by us with something else which, 
because known by us, must be comparatively 
little, or perhaps in some of its qualities or rela- 
tions of a different nature, so that no fit com- 
parison of things so dissimilar can be instituted — 
this circumstance proves the absence of rational 
evidence to us ; but it by no means follows that 
the doctrine is incapable of rational proof, though 
probably no reason but that of God, or of a more 
exalted being than man in his present state, may 
be adequate to unfold it. 

It has indeed been maintained, that though our 
reason may be inadequate to tho discovery of 
such truths as the kind of revelation we have 
supposed to be necessary must contain, yet, when 
aided by this revelation, it is raised into so per- 
fect a condition, that what appears incongruous 
to it ought to be concluded contrary to the reve- 
lation itself. This, to a certain extent, is true. 
When a doctrine is clearly revealed to us, stand- 
ing as it does upon an infalliblo authority, no 
contrary doctrine can be true, whether found 
without tho record of the revelation, or deduced 
from it; for this is in fact no moro than saying 
that human opinions must be tried by Divine 
authority, and that revel a ii on must be consistent 
with itself. Tho test to which in this case, how- 
ever, we subject a contradictory dootrine, so long 
as wo adhere to the revelation, is formed of 
principles which our reason did not furnish, hut 
such as were oommunioated to as by supernatu- 
ral interposition j and the judge to which we refer 
is noi, properly speaking, reason, bui revelation. 

But if by this is mean! that our reason. 
enlightened by the annunciation o( I 



60 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART I. 

tatioa. "when, as to the subject in question, we 
have sufficient knowledge to affirm that the in- 
terpretation is contrary to the nature 
which, in this case, it is also necessary to he 
assured that we have been able to ascertain. 
Of some things we know the nature without a 
revelation, inasmuch as they lie within the range 
of our own observation and experience, as that a 
human body cannot be in two places at the same 
time. Of other things we know the nature by 
revelation, and by that our knowledge is enlarged. 
If, therefore, from some figurati- :- of a 

revelation, any person, as the papists, should 
affirm that wine is human blood. : unan 

- can be in two places at the same time, it is 
contrary to our reason — that is, not to mere 
opinion, but to the nature :: ; : inkling which 
w i kn >W80 well, that we are bound to reject the 
interpretation as an absurdity. If, again, any 
were to interpret passages which speak of God 
as having the form of man, to mean that he has 
merely a local presence, our reason has been 
taught by revelation that God is a spirit, and 
tion should contain any declarations as :: the exists everywhere, that is, so far we have been 
nature of the Creator himself, as that he is ; taught the nature of things as to God, and 
eternal and self-existent and in every place, and , we reject the interpretation, as contrary to what 



truths of revelation, can discover or complete, in 
all cases, the process of their rational proof, that 
is, their conformity to the nature and truth of 
things, and is thus authorized to reject whatever 
eannot be thus harmonized with our own deduc- 
tions from the leading truths thus revealed, so 
great a concession cannot be made to human 
ability. In many of the rules of r_ 
the doctrines of religion too, it may be allowed 
that a course of thought is opened which may 
be pursued to the enlargement of the rational 
evidence of the doctrines taught, but not 
what concerns many of the attributes of 
his purposes concerning the human race : some 
of his most important procedures toward us : 
and the future destiny of man. TThen once it is 
revealed that man is a creature, we cannot but 
perceive the reasonableness of our being governed 
by the law of our Creator : that this is founded , 
in his right and our duty : and that, when we are 
concerned with a wise, and gracious, and just 
Governor, what is our duty must of necessity be 
promotive of our happiness. But if the revela- 



that he knows all things : the thoughts thus sug- 
gested, the doctrines thu3 stated, nakedly and 
authoritatively, are too mysterious to be dis- 
tinctly apprehended by us, and we are unable, 
mparing them with any thing else, [foi ire 
know nothing with which we can compare them.) 
to acquire any clear views of the manner in which 
such a being exists, or why such perfections 
necessarily flow from his peculiar nature. If, 
therefore, the revelation itself does not state in 
addition to the mere facts that he is self-existent, 
omnipresent, omniscient, etc.. the manner in 
which the existence of such attributes harmo- 
- with the nature son of things, we 

cannot supply the chasm : and should we even 
catch some view of the rational evidence, which 
: denied, we are unable to complete it : our 
reason is not enlightened up to the frill measure 
of these truths, nor on such subjects are we quite 
certain that some of our most rational deductions 
are perfectly sound, and we cannot, therefore, 
make use of thei by which to try 

any doctrine, beyond the degree in which they 
are clearly revealed and authoritati~ 
to us. Other examples might be given, but these 
are sufficient for illustration. 

These observations being made, it will be easy 
iennite limits to the rule, "that no 
doctrine in an admitted revelation is to be under- 
stood in a sense contrary to reason." The only 
way in which such a rule can be safely received 
is, that nothing is to be taken as a true interpre- 



has been so clearly revealed, and resolve every 
anthropomorphite expression we may find in the 
revelation into figurative and accommodated lan- 
guage. In the application of this rule, when 
even thus limited, care is, however, to be taken, 
that we distinguish what is capable of being tried 
by it. If we compare one thing with another, in 
order to determine whether it agrees with or 
differs from it. it is not enough that we have 
sufficient knowledge of that with which we com- 
pare it, and which we have made the standard 
of judgment. It is also necessary that the things 
compared should be of the same nature ; and that 
the comparison should be made in the same respects. 
We take for illustration the case just given. Of 
two bodies we can affirm, that they cannot be in 
the same place at the same time : but we cannot 
affirm that of a body and r we know 

what relation bodies have to place and to each 
other, but we do not know wha: - :irits 

have to each other, or to space. This may illus- 
trate the first rule. The second demands that 
the comparison be made in. the same respect. 
If we affirm of two bodies, one of a round, 
the other of a square figure, that their figure is 
-.me. the comparison determines the case, 
and at once detects the error ; but of these 
bodies, so different in figure, it may be affirmed, 
without contradiction, that they are of the same 
specific gravity, for the difference of figm 
not that in respect of which the compari? 
made. We apply this to the interpretation of a 



CH. XI.] 



EVIDENCES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



61 



revelation of God and his will. The rule which 
requires us to reject, as a true interpretation of 
that revelation, whatever is contrary to reason, 
may be admitted in all cases where we know the 
real nature of things, and conduct the comparison 
with the cautions just given ; but it would be 
most delusive, and would counteract the intention 
of the revelation itself, by unsettling its authority, 
if it were applied in any other way. For, 

1. In all cases where the nature of things is 
not clearly and satisfactorily known, it cannot be 
affirmed that a doctrine contradicts them, and is 
therefore contrary to reason. 

2. When that of which we would form a 
rational judgment is not itself distinctly appre- 
hended, it cannot be satisfactorily compared with 
those things, the nature of which we adequately 
know, and therefore cannot be said to be contrary 
to reason. 

Now in such a revelation as we have supposed 
necessary for man, there are many facts and 
doctrines which are not capable of being com- 
pared with any thing we adequately know, and 
they therefore lie wholly without the range of 
the rule in question. We suppose it to declare 
what God, the infinite First Cause, is. But it is 
of the nature of such a being to be, in many 
respects, peculiar to himself, and, as in those 
respects he cannot admit of comparison with any 
other, what may be false, if affirmed of ourselves, 
because contradictory to what we know of human 
nature, may be true of him, to whom the nature 
of things is his own nature, and his own nature 
alone. The same observation may be made as 
to many of his natural attributes : they are the 
attributes of a peculiar nature, and are therefore 
peculiar to themselves, either in kind or in degree : 
they admit of no comparison, each being like 
himself, sui generis; and the nature of things, 
as to them respectively, is their own nature. 
The same reasoning may, in part, be applied to 
the general purposes of God, in making and 
governing his creatures. They are not, in every 
respect, capable of being compared to any thing 
we adequately know, in order to determine their 
reasonableness. Creatures do not stand to each 
other in all the relations in which they stand to 
him, and no reasoning from their mutual relations 
can assist us in judging of the plans he has 
formed with respect to the whole, with the extent 
of which, indeed, we are unacquainted* or often 
of a part, whose relations to the whole we know 
not. Were we to subject what he has commanded 
us to do, or to leave undone, to the test of 
reasonableness, wo should often be at a loss how 
to commence the inquiry, for it may have a 
roason arising out of his own nature, which w c 
either know not at all, or only in the partial and 



authoritative revelations he has made of himself; 
or out of his general plans, of which we are not 
judges, for the reasons just given ; or its reason 
may lie in our own nature, which we know but 
partially, because we find it differently operated 
upon by circumstances, and cannot know in what 
circumstances we may at any future time be 
placed. 

With respect to the moral perfections of God, 
as they are more capable of a complete com- 
parison with what we find in intelligent creatures, 
the notion of infinity being applicable to them in 
a different sense to that in which it is applied to 
his natural attributes, and adequate ideas of 
justice and mercy and goodness being within 
our reach, this rule is much more applicable in 
all cases which would involve interpretations 
consistent with or opposed to these ideas ; and 
any deduction clearly contrary to them is to be 
rejected, as grounded not upon the revelation 
but a false interpretation. This will be the more 
confirmed, if we find any thing in the revelation 
itself in the form of an appeal to our own ideas 
of moral subjects, as for instance of justice and 
equity, in justification of the Divine proceedings ; 
for then we have the authority of the Giver of 
the revelation himself for attaching such ideas to 
his justice and equity as are implied in the same 
terms in the language of men. 1 A doctrine 
which would impugn these attributes, is not 
therefore to be deduced from such a revelation ; 
but here the rule can only be applied to such 
cases as we fully comprehend. There may be 
an apparent injustice in a case, which, if we knew 
the whole of it, would be found to harmonize 
with the strictest equity ; and what evidence of 
conformity to the moral attributes of God it now 
wants may be manifested in a future state, either 
by superior information then vouchsafed to us, 
or, when the subject of the proceeding is an 
immortal being, by the different circumstances 
of compensation in which he may be placed. 

Upon the whole then it will appear, that this 
rule of interpreting a revelation is necessarily 
but of limited application, and chiefly respects 
those parts of the record in which obscure 
passages and figurative language may occur. In 
most others, a revelation, if comprehensive, will 
be found its own interpreter, by bringing every 
doubtful case to be determined by its own un- 
questionable general principles and explicit 
declarations. The use of reason, therefore, in 



i Tims in tlio Scriptures we find numerous appeals of this 
kind: "Judge betwixt me and mj vineyard." "An not 

my ways equal?'' '-Shall not the Judge of all the 
earth <io right?" All of which passages suppose thai equity 

and justice in God accord with the Ideas attached to the 
same terms among men. 



62 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



matters of revelation, is to investigate the 
evidences on which it is founded, and fairly and 
impartially to interpret it according to the ordi- 
nary rules of interpretation in other cases. Its 
limit is the authority of God. When he has 
explicitly laid down a doctrine, that doctrine is 
to be humbly received, whatever degree of 
rational evidence may be afforded of its truth, 
or withheld; and no torturing or perverting 
criticisms can be innocently resorted to, to bring 
a doctrine into a better accordance with our 
favorite views and systems, any more than to 
make a precept bend to the love and practice of 
our vicious indulgences. A larger scope than 
this cannot certainly be assigned to human reason 
in matters of revelation, when it is elevated to 
the office of & judge — a judge of the evidences on 
which a professed revelation rests, and a judge 
of its meaning after the application of the esta- 
blished rules of interpretation in other cases. 1 
But if reason be considered as a learner, it may 
have a much wider range in those fields of intelli- 
gence which a genuine revelation from God will 
open to our view. All truth, even that which to 
us is most abstruse and mysterious, is capable 
of rational demonstration, though not to the 
reason of man, in the present state, and in some 
cases probably to no reason below that of the 
Divine nature. Truth is founded in reality, and 
for that reason is truth. Some truths, therefore, 
which a revelation only could make known, will 
often appear to us rational, because consistent 
with what we already know. Meditation upon 
them, or experience of their reality in new cir- 
cumstances in which we may be placed, may 
•enlarge that evidence ; and thus our views of the 
conformity of many of the doctrines revealed, 
with the nature and reality of things, may 
acquire a growing clearness and distinctness. 
The observations of others also may, by reading 
and converse, be added to our own, and often 
serve to carry out our minds into some new and 
richer vein of thought. Thus it is that reason, 
instead of being fettered, as some pretend, by 
being regulated, is enlightened by revelation, 
and enabled from the first principles, and by the 
grand landmarks which it furnishes, to pursue 
its inquiries into many subjects to an extent 
which enriches and ennobles the human intellect, 
and administers continual food to the strength 
of religious principle. This, however, is not the 
case with all subjects. Many, as we have already 
seen, are from their very nature wholly incapable 
of investigation. At the first step we launch 
into darkness, and find in religion as well as in 



1 See note A at the end of this chapter, in which two 
common objections are answered. 



natural philosophy, beyond certain limits, insur- 
mountable barriers, which bid defiance to human 
penetration; and even where the rational evi- 
dence of a truth but nakedly stated in revelation, 
or very partially developed, can by human 
powers be extended, that circumstance gives us 
no qualification to judge of the truth of another 
doctrme which is stated on the mere authority of 
the dispenser of the revelation, and of which 
there is no evidence at all to our reason. It may 
belong to subjects of another and a higher class ; 
and if it be found in the Eecord, is not to be ex- 
plained away by principles which we may have 
drawn from other truths, though revealed, for 
those inferences have no higher an authority 
than the strength of our own fallible powers, 
and consequently cannot be put in competition 
with the declarations of an infallible teacher, 
ascertained by just rules of grammatical and 
literary interpretation. 



Note A. 



" In whatever point of view," says an able living author, 
"the subject be placed, the same arguments which show 
the incapability of man, by the light of nature, to discover 
religious truth, will serve likewise to show that, when it is 
revealed to him, he is not warranted in judging of it merely 
by the notions which he had previously formed. For is it 
not a solecism to affirm that man's natural reason is a fit 
standard for measuring the wisdom or truth of those things 
with which it is wholly unacquainted, except so far as they 
have been supernaturally revealed ?" 

"But what, then,"' (an objector will say,) "is the pro- 
vince of reason? Is it altogether useless? Or are we to 
be precluded from using it in this most important of all 
concerns, for our security against error ?" 

Our answer is, that we do not lessen either the utility or 
the dignity of human reason, by thus confining tbe exer- 
cise of it within those natural boundaries which the Cre- 
ator himself hath assigned to it. We admit, with the 
Deist, that " reason is the foundation of all certitude ; : ' and 
we admit, therefore, that it is fully competent to judge 
of the credibility of any thing which is proposed to it as a 
Divine revelation. But we deny that it has a right to dis- 
pute (because we maintain that it has not the ability to 
disprove) the wisdom or the truth of those things which 
revelation proposes to its acceptance. Beason is to judge 
whether those things be indeed so revealed ; and this judg- 
ment it is to form from the evidence to that effect. In this 
respect it is "the foundation of certitude," because it 
enables us to ascertain the fact that God hath spoken to ;is. 
But this fact once established, the credibility, nay, the cer- 
tainty of the things revealed, follows as of necessary con- 
sequence; since no deduction of reason can be more 
indubitable than this, that whatever God reveals must be 
true. Here, then, the authority of reason ceases. Its 
judgment is finally determined by the fact of the revelation 
itself; and it has thenceforth nothing to do but to believe 
and to obey. 

" But are we to believe every doctrine, however incom- 
prehensible, however mysterious, nay, however seemingly 
contradictory to sense and reason ?" 

We answer, that revelation is supposed to treat of sub- 
jects with which man's natural reason is not conversant. 



CH. XII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



63 



It is therefore to be expected that it should communicate 
some truths not to be fully comprehended by human 
understandings. But these we may safely receive, upon 
the authority which declares them, without danger of 
violating truth. Real and evident contradictions, no men 
can, indeed, believe, whose intellects are sound and clear. 
But such contradictions are no more proposed for our 
belief, than impossibilities are enjoined for our practice ; 
though things difficult to understand, as well as things hard 
to perform, may perhaps be required of us, for the trial of 
our faith and resolution. Seeming contradictions may also 
occur; but these may seem to be such because they are 
slightly or superficially considered, or because they are 
judged of by principles inapplicable to the subject, and 
without so clear a knowledge of the nature of the things 
revealed, as may lead us to form an adequate conception 
of them. These, however, afford no solid argument against 
the truth of what is proposed to our belief; since, unless 
we had really such an insight into the mysterious parts 
of revelation as might enable us to prove them to be con- 
tradictory and false, we have no good ground for rejecting 
them ; and we only betray our own ignorance and perverse- 
ness in refusing to take God's word for the truth of things 
which pass man's understanding. 

The simple question, indeed, to be considered, is, whether 
it be reasonable to believe, upon competent authority, 
things which we can neither discover ourselves, nor, when 
discovered, fully and clearly comprehend? Now every 
person of common observation must be aware, that unless 
he be content to receive solely upon the testimony of others 
a great variety of information, much of which he may be 
wholly unable to account for or explain, he could scarcely 
obtain a competency of knowledge to carry him safely 
through the common concerns of life. And with respect 
to scientific truths, the greatest masters in philosophy 
know full well that many things are reasonably to be be- 
lieved, nay, must be believed on sure and certain grounds 
of conviction, though they are absolutely incomprehen- 
sible by our understandings, and even so difficult to be 
reconciled with other truths of equal certainty, as to carry 
the appearance of being contradictory and impossible. 
This will serve to show, that it is not contrary to reason to 
believe, on sufficient authority, some things which cannot 
be comprehended, and some things which, from the narrow 
and circumscribed views we are able to take of them, 
appear to be repugnant to our notions of truth. The ground 
on which we believe such things, is the strength and cer- 
tainty of the evidence with which they are accompanied. 
And this is precisely the ground on which we are required 
to believe the truths of revealed religion. The evidence that 
they come from, God, is, to reason itself, as incontrovertible 
a proof that they are true, as in matters of human science 
would be the evidence of sense, or of mathematical demon- 
stration. 



CHAPTER XII. 

ANTIQUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

From the preparatory course of argument and 
observation -which has been hitherto pursued, 
we proceed to the investigation of the question, 
whether there are sufficient reasons to conclude 
that such a revelation of truth as wo have 
seen to bo so necessary for the instruction and 
moral correction of mankind, is to bo found in 
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments : 
a question of the utmost importance, inasmuch 



as, if not found there, there are the most cogent 
reasons for concluding that a revelation was 
never vouchsafed to man, or that it is irretriev- 
ably lost. 

No person living in an enlightened country 
will for a moment contend that the Koran of 
Mohammed, or any of the reputed sacred writ- 
ings of the Chinese, Hindoos, or Budhists, can 
be put into competition with the Bible ; so 
that it is universally acknowledged among us 
that there is but one book in the world which 
has claims to Divine authority so presumptively 
substantial as to be worthy of serious exami- 
nation; and therefore, if the advantage of su- 
pernatural and infallible instruction has been 
afforded to man, it may be concluded to be found 
in that alone. This consideration indicates the 
proper temper of mind with which such an in- 
quiry ought to be approached. 

Instead of wishing to discover that the claims 
of the Scriptures to Divine authority are un- 
founded, (the case, it is to be feared, with too 
many,) every humble and sincere man, con- 
scious of his own mental infirmity, and recol- 
lecting the perplexities in which the wisest of 
men have been involved on religious and moral 
subjects, will wish to find at length an infallible 
guide, and will examine the evidences of the 
Bible with an anxious desire that he may find 
sufficient reason to acknowledge their Divine 
authority; and he will feel that, should he be 
disappointed, he has met with a painful misfor- 
tune, and not a matter for triumph. If this 
temper of mind, which is perfectly consistent 
with full and even severe examination of the 
claims of Scripture, does not exist, the persoi** 
destitute of it is neither a sincere nor an earnest 
inquirer after truth. 

We may go farther, and say, though we have 
no wish to prejudge the argument, that if the 
person examining the Holy Scriptures in order 
to ascertain the truth of their pretensions to 
Divine authority, has had the means of only a 
general acquaintance with their contents, he 
ought, if a lover of virtue as well as truth, to be 
predisposed in their favor ; and that, if he is not, 
the moral state of his heart is liable to great sus- 
picion. For that the theological system of the 
Scriptures is in favor of the highest virtues, 
cannot be denied. It both prescribes them, and 
affords the strongest possible motives io their 
cultivation. Lovo to God, and to all mankind; 
meekness, courtesy, charity: the government of 
the appetites and affections with in the rules of tem- 
perance; the renunciation of evil imaginations, 
and sins of the heart ; exact justice in all our 
dealings: — these, and indeed every other virtue, 
civil, social, domestic, and personal, are clearly 



64 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



taught and solemnly commanded ; and it might 
be confidently put to every candid person, how- 
ever skeptical, whether the universal observance 
of the morality of the Scriptures, by all ranks 
and nations, would not produce the most bene- 
ficial changes in society, and secure universal 
peace, friendship, and happiness. This he would 
not deny ; this has been acknowledged by some 
infidel writers themselves ; and if so — if, after 
all the bewildering speculations of the wisest 
men on religious and moral subjects, and which, 
as we have seen, led to nothing definite and in- 
fluential, a book is presented to us which shows 
what virtue is, and the means of attaining it; 
which enforces it by sufiicient sanctions, and 
points every individual and every community to 
a certain remedy for all their vices, disorders, 
and miseries ; — we must renounce all title to be 
considered lovers of virtue and lovers of our 
species, if we do not feel ourselves interested in 
the establishment of its claims to Divine autho- 
rity ; and because we love virtue, we shall wish 
that the proof of this important point may be 
found satisfactory. This surely is the temper 
of mind we ought to bring to such an inquiry ; 
and the rejection of the Scriptures by those who 
are not under its influence, is rather a presump- 
tion in their favor than a consideration which 
throws upon them the least discredit. 

In addition to the proofs which have been given 
of the necessity of a revelation, both from the 
reason of things and the actual circumstances of 
the world, it has been established that miracles 
actually performed, and prophecies really uttered 
and clearly accomplished, are satisfactory proofs 
of the authority of a communication of the will 
of God through the agency of men. "We have, 
however, stated that in cases where we are not 
witnesses of the miracles, and auditors of the 
predictions, but obtain information respecting 
them from some record, we must, before we can 
admit the force of the argument drawn from 
them, be assured that the record was early and 
faithfully made, and has been uncorruptly kept, 
with respect to the miracles ; and, with respect 
to the prophecies, that they were also uttered 
and recorded previously to those events occurring 
which are alleged to be accomplishments of them. 
These are points necessary to be ascertained 
before it is worth the trouble to inquire whether 
the alleged miracles have any claim to be consi- 
dered as miraculous in a proper sense, and the 
predictions as revelations from an omniscient, 
and, consequently, a Divine Being. 

The first step in this inquiry is to ascertain 
the existence, age, and actions of the leading 
persons mentioned in Scripture as the instru- 



[PART I. 

ments by whom it is professed the revelations 
they contain were made known. 

With respect to these persons, it is not neces- 
sary that our attention should be directed to 
more than two— Moses and Christ,— one the 
reputed agent of the Mosaic, the other the author 
of the Christian revelation ; because the evidence 
which establishes their existence and actions, 
and the period of both, will also establish all 
that is stated in the same records as to the 
subordinate and succeeding agents. 

The Biblical record states that Moses was the 
leader and legislator of the nation of the Jews 
near sixteen hundred years before the Christian 
era, according to the common chronology. This 
is grounded upon the tradition and national his- 
tory of the Jews ; and it is certain that so far 
from there being any reason to doubt the fact, 
much less to suppose, with an extravagant fancy 
of some modern infidels, that Moses was a 
mythological personage, the very same princi- 
ples of historical evidence which assure us of the 
truth of any unquestioned fact of profane his- 
tory, assure us of the truth of this. It cannot 
be doubted that the Jews existed very anciently 
as a nation. It is equally certain that it has 
been an uninterrupted and universally received 
tradition among them, in all ages, that Moses led 
them out of Egypt, and first gave them their 
system of laws and religion. The history of that 
event they have in writing, and also the laws 
attributed to him. There is nothing in the lead- 
ing events of their history contradicted by 
remaining authentic historical records of those 
nations with whom they were geographically and 
politically related, to support any suspicion of its 
accuracy ; and as their institutions must have 
been established and enjoined by some political 
authority, and bear the marks of a systematic 
arrangement, established at once, and not grow- 
ing up under the operation of circumstances at 
distant periods, to one superior and commanding 
mind they are most reasonably to be attributed. 
The Jews refer them to Moses, and if this be 
denied, no proof can be oifered in favor of any 
other person being entitled to that honor. The 
history is therefore uncontradicted by any op- 
posing evidence, and can only be denied on some 
principle of skepticism which would equally 
shake the foundations of all history whatever. 

The same observations may be made as to the 
existence of the Founder of the Christian reli- 
gion. In the records of the New Testament he 
is called Jesus Christ, because he professed to 
be the Messias predicted in the Jewish Scrip- 
tures, and was acknowledged as such by his 
followers; and his birth is fixed upward of 



CH. X1T.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 



65 



eighteen centuries ago. This also is at least 
uncontradicted testimony. The Christian reli- 
gion exists, and must have had an author. Like 
the institutions of Moses, it bears the evidence 
of being the work of one mind ; and, as a theo- 
logical system, presents no indications of a 
gradual and successive elaboration. There 
was a time when there was no such religion as 
that of Christianity, and when pagan idolatry 
and Judaism universally prevailed: it follows 
that there once floui'ished a teacher to whom it 
owed its origin, and all tradition and history 
unite in their testimony that that lawgiver was 
Jesus Christ. No other person has ever been 
adduced, living at a later period, as the founder 
of this form of religion. 

To the existence and the respective antiquity 
ascribed in the Scriptures to the founders of the 
Jewish and Christian religion, many ancient 
writers give ample testimony ; who being them- 
selves neither of the Jewish nor Christian reli- 
gion, cannot be suspected of having any design 
to furnish evidence of the truth of either. 
Manetho, Cheremon, Apollonius, and Lysima- 
chus, besides some other ancient Egyptians 
whose histories are now lost, are quoted by 
Josephus, as extant in his days ; and passages 
are collected from them, in which they agree 
that Moses was the leader of the Jews when 
they departed from Egypt, and the founder of 
their laws. Strabo, who nourished in the cen- 
tury before Christ, (Geoff. 1. 16,) gives an 
account of the law of Moses as forbidding 
images, and limiting Divine worship to one invi- 
sible and universal Being. Justin, a Roman 
historian, in his 36th book devotes a chapter to 
an account of the origin of the Jews: represents 
them as sprung from ten sons of Israel, and 
speaks of Moses as the commander of the Jews 
who went out of Egypt, of the institution of the 
Sabbath, and the priesthood of Aaron. Pliny 
speaks of Moses as giving rise to a sect of magi- 
cians, probably with reference to his contest with 
the magicians of Egypt. Tacitus says, "Moses 
gave a new form of worship to the Jews, and a 
system of religious ceremonies the reverse of 
every thing known to any other age or country." 
Juvenal, in his 14th Satire, mentions Moses as 
the author of a volume which was preserved with 
great care among the Jews, by which the wor- 
ship of images and eating swine's flesh were 
forbidden, and circumcision and the observation 
of the Sabbath strictly enjoined. Longinus cites 
Moses as the lawgiver of the Jews, ami praises 
the sublimity of bis style in the account ho gives 
of the creation. The Orphic versos, which are 
very ancient, inculcate the worship of one God, 
as recommended by that law "which was given 
5 



by him who was drawn out of the water, and 
received two tables of stone from the hand of 
God." (Eus. Prcep. Ev. 1. 13, c. xii.) Diodorus 
Siculus, in his first book, when he treats of those 
who consider the gods to be the authors of their 
laws, adds, "Among the Jews was Moses, who 
called God by the name of law, Iao" meaning 
Jehovah. Justin Martyr expressly says that 
most of the historians, poets, lawgivers, and 
philosophers of the Greeks, mention Moses as 
the leader and prince of the Jewish nation. 
From all these testimonies (and many more, were 
it necessary, might be adduced) it is clear that it 
was as commonly received among ancient nations 
as among the Jews themselves, that Moses was 
the founder and lawgiver of the Jewish state. 

As to Christ, it is only necessary to give the 
testimony of two historians, whose antiquity no 
one ever thought of disputing. Suetonius men- 
tions him by name, and says that Claudius 
expelled from Eome those who adhered to his 
cause. 1 Tacitus records the progress which the 
Christian religion had made : the violent death 
its founder had suffered: that he flourished 
under the reign of Tiberius: that Pilate was 
then procurator of Judea ; and that the original 
author of this profession was Christ. 2 Thus, not 
only the real existence of the founder of Chris- 
tianity, but the period in which he lived is exactly 
ascertained from writings, the genuineness of 
which has never been doubted. 

The antiquity of the books which contain 
the history, the doctrines, and the laws of the 
Jewish and the Christian lawgivers, is next to be 
considered, and the evidence is not less satis- 
factory. The importance of this fact in the 
argument is obvious. If the writings in question 
were made at, or very near, the time in which 
the miraculous acts recorded in them were per- 
formed, then the evidence of those events having 
occurred is rendered the stronger, for they were 
written at the time when many were still living 
who might have contradicted the narration if 
false ; and the improbability is also greater, that 
in the very age and place when and where those 
events are said to have been performed, any 
writer would have dared to run the hazard oi' 
prompt, certain, and disgraceful detection. 1; 
is equally important in the evidence of proph 
for if the predictions were recorded long b< 
the events which accomplished them took place, 
then the only question which remains is whether 
ihc accomplishment is satisfactory, for then the 
evidence becomes irresistible. 



LJudeeos Impulsore Ohriato assidue tumultuantea Rorati 
expulit. (Subi. Edit Vex. p. 54 L) 

2 Auctor nominia ejus Chrlstus, qui Tiberio Iraporitante, 
per produratorem Ponttum Pilatum supplicio anectus erat, 

(Annal. 1. 6.) 



66 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



With respect to the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, the language in which they are 
written is a strong proof of their antiquity. The 
Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a living lan- 
guage soon after the Babylonish captivity ; and 
the learned agree that there was no grammar 
made for the Hebrew till many ages after. The 
difficulty of a forgery, at any period after the 
time of that captivity, is therefore apparent. 
Of these books, too, there was a Greek transla- 
tion made about two hundred and eighty-seven 
years before the Christian era, and laid up in the 
Alexandrian Library. 

Josephus gives a catalogue of the sacred books 
among the Jews, in which he expressly mentions 
the five books of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets, 
four of Hymns and Moral Precepts ; and if, as 
many critics maintain, Euth was added to Judges, 
and the Lamentations of Jeremiah to his Pro- 
phecies, the number agrees with those of the Old 
Testament as it is received at the present day. 

The Samaritans, who separated from the Jews 
many hundred years before the birth of Christ, 
have in their language a Pentateuch, in the main 
exactly agreeing with the Hebrew; and the pagan 
writers before cited, with many others, speak of 
Moses not only as a lawgiver and a prince, but 
as the author of books esteemed sacred by the 
Jews. 1 

If the writings of Moses then are not genuine, 
the forgery must have taken place at a very early 
period ; but a few considerations will show that 
at any time this was impossible. 

These books could never have been surrepti- 
tiously put forth in the name of Moses, as the 
argument of Leslie most fully proves: "It is 
impossible that those books should have been 
received as his, if not written by him, because 
they speak of themselves as delivered by Moses, 
-and kept in the ark from his time : 'And it came 
to pass when Moses had made an end of writing 
the words of this law in a book until they were 
finished, . that Moses commanded the Levites who 
bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, 
Take the book of the law, and put it in the side 
of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, 
that it may be there for a witness against thee.' 
Deut. xxxi. 24-26. A copy of this book was 
also to be left with the king: 'And it shall be, 
when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, 
that he shall write him a copy of this law in a 
book out of that which is before the priests the 
Levites ; and it shall be with him, and he shall 
read therein all the days of his life,' etc. Deut. 
xvii. 18. This book of the law thus speaks of 



i See note A at the end of this chapter, for a larger proof 
of the above particulars. 



itself, not only as a history or relation of what 
things were done, but as the standing and muni- 
cipal law and statutes of the nation of the Jews, 
binding the king as well as the people. Now in 
whatever age after Moses this book may be sup- 
posed to have been forged, it was impossible that 
it could be received as truth, because it was not 
then to be found (as it professed to be) either in 
the ark or with the king, or anywhere else ; for 
when first invented, everybody must know that 
they had never heard of it before. 

"Could any man, now at this day, invent a 
book of statutes or acts of parliament for Eng- 
land, and make it pass upon the nation as the 
only book of statutes that ever they had known ? 
As impossible was it for the books of Moses (if 
they were invented in any age after Moses) to 
have been received for what they declare them- 
selves to be, viz., the statutes and municipal law 
of the nation of the Jews ; and to have persuaded 
the Jews that they had owned and acknowledged 
these books all along from the days of Moses to 
that day in which they were first invented ; that 
is, that they had owned them before they had 
ever so much as heard of them. Nay, more, the 
whole nation must, in an instant, forget their 
former laws and government, if they could re- 
ceive these books as being their former laws. 
And they could not otherwise receive them, be- 
cause they vouched themselves so to be. Let 
me ask the Deists but one short question : Was 
there ever a book of sham laws, which were not 
the laws of the nation, palmed upon any people 
since the world began ? If not, with what face 
can they say this of the book of laws of the 
Jews ? Why will they say that of them which 
they confess impossible in any nation, or among 
any people ? 

"But they must be yet more unreasonable. 
For the books of Moses have a further demon- 
stration of their truth than even other law books 
have ; for they not only contain the laws, but 
give a historical account of their institution, and 
the practice of them from that time ; as of the 
passover, in memory of the death of the first- 
born in Egypt; (Num. viii. 17, 18;) and that the 
same day all the first-born of Israel, both of man 
and beast, were, by a perpetual law, dedicated 
to God ; and the Levites taken for all the first- 
born of the children of Israel. That Aaron's 
rod, which budded, was kept in the ark, in 
memory of the rebellion and wonderful destruc- 
tion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ; and for the 
confirmation of the priesthood to the tribe of 
Levi. As likewise the pot of manna, in memory 
of their having been fed with it forty years in 
the wilderness. That the brazen serpent was 
kept, (which remained to the days of Hezekiah, 



CH. XII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



67 



2 Kings xviii. 4,) in memory of that wonderful 
deliverance, by only looking upon it, from the 
biting of the fiery serpents. Num. xxi. 9. The 
feast of pentecost, in memory of the dreadful 
appearance of God upon Mount Horeb, etc. 

"And besides these remembrances of particular 
actions and occurrences, there were other solemn 
institutions in memory of their deliverance out 
of Egypt, in the general, which included all the 
particulars. As of the Sabbath: (Deut. v. 15:) 
their daily sacrifices, and yearly expiation : their 
new moons, and several feasts and fasts. So 
that there were yearly, monthly, weekly, daily 
remembrances and recognitions of these things. 

"And not only so, but the books of the same 
Moses tell U3 that a particular tribe (of Levi) 
was appointed and consecrated by God as his 
priests; by whose hands, and none other, the 
sacrifices of the people were to be offered, and 
these solemn institutions to be celebrated — that 
it was death for any other to approach the altar — 
that their high priest wore a glorious mitre, 
and magnificent robes of God's own contrivance, 
with the miraculous Urim and Thummim in his 
breastplate, whence the Divine responses were 
given — Num. xxvii. 21 — that at his word the 
king and all the people were to go out and to 
come in — that these Levites were likewise the 
chief judges even in all civil causes, and that it 
was death to resist their sentence. Deut. xvii. 
8-13 : 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. Now, whenever it can 
be supposed that these books of Moses were 
forged in some ages after Moses, it is impossible 
they could have been received as true, unless the 
forgers could have made the whole nation believe 
that they had received these books from their 
fathers, had been instructed in them when they 
were children, and had taught them to their 
children : moreover, that they had all been cir- 
cumcised, and did circumcise their children, in 
pursuance to what was commanded in these 
books : that they had observed the yearly pass- 
over, the weekly Sabbath, the new moons, and 
all these several feasts, fasts, and ceremonies, 
commanded in these books : that they had never 
eaten any swine's flesh, or other meats prohibited 
in these books : that they had a magnificent tab- 
ernacle, with a visible priesthood to administer 
in it, which was confined to the tribe of Levi ; 
over whom was placed a glorious high priest, 
clothed with great and mighty prerogatives, 
whose death only could deliver those that were 
fled to the cities of refuge, Num. xxxv. 25, 28 ; 
and that these priests wero their ordinary judges, 
even in civil matters : — I say, was it possible to 
have persuaded a whole nation of men that they 
had known and practiced all theso things if they 
had not done it ? or, secondly, to have recoived 



a book for truth which said they had practiced 
them, and appealed to that practice ? 

" But now let us descend to the utmost degree 
of supposition, viz., that these things were prac- 
ticed before these books of Moses were forged ; 
and that those books did only impose upon the 
nation in making them believe that they had 
kept these observances in memory of such and 
such things as were inserted in those books. 

"Well, then, let us proceed upon this supposi- 
tion, (however groundless,) and now will not the 
same impossibilities occur as in the former case ? 
For, first, this must suppose that the Jews kept 
all these observances in memory of nothing, or 
without knowing any thing of their original, or 
the reason why they kept them. "Whereas, these 
very observances did express the ground and 
reason of their being kept — as the passover, in 
memory of God's passing over the children of 
the Israelites, in that night wherein he slew all 
the first-born of Egypt ; and so of the rest. 

"But, secondly, let us suppose, contrary both 
to reason and matter of fact, that the Jews did 
not know any reason at all why they kept these 
observances ; yet was it possible to put it upon 
them that they had kept these observances in 
memory of what they had never heard of before 
that day, whensoever you will suppose that these 
books of Moses were first forged ? For example, 
suppose I should now forge some romantic 
story of strange things done a thousand years 
ago ; and, in confirmation of this, should en- 
deavor to persuade the Christian world that they 
had all along from that day to this kept the first 
day of the week in memory of such a hero, an 
Apollonius, a Barcosbas, or a Mohammed ; and 
had all been baptized in his name, and swore by 
his name, and upon that very book, (which I had 
then forged, and which they never saw before,) 
in their public judicatures ; that this book was 
their gospel and law, which they had ever since 
that time, these thousand years past, universally 
received and owned, and none other. I would ask 
any Deist whether he thinks it possible that such 
a cheat could pass, or such a legend be received as 
the gospel of Christians, and that they could be 
made to believe that they never had any other 
gospel ? 

"Let me give one very familiar example more 
in this case. There is the Stonehenge in Salis- 
bury Plain — everybody knows it ; and yet none 
knows the reason why those great stones were 
set there, or by whom, or in memory of what. 

"Now, suppose I should -write a hook to-mor- 
row, and tell them that these stones were set up 

by Heroules, Polyphemus, or Garagantna, in 

memory of sueh and sueh of their aetious. And, 
for a further confirmation of this, should sav in 



68 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART I. 



this book that it was written at the time when 
such actions were done, and by the very actors 
themselves, or eye-witnesses. And that this 
book had been received as truth, and quoted by 
authors of the greatest reputation in all ages 
since. Moreover, that this book was well known 
in England, and enjoined by act of parliament to 
be taught our children, and that we did teach it 
to our children, and had been taught it ourselves 
when we were children. I ask any Deist whether 
he thinks this could pass upon England? and 
whether, if I or any other should insist upon it, 
we should not, instead of being believed, be sent 
to Bedlam? 

"Now, let us compare this with the Stone- 
henge, as I may call it, or twelve great stones 
set up at Gilgal, which is told in the fourth 
chapter of Joshua. There it is said, (verse 6,) 
that the reason why they were set up was that 
when their children, in after ages, should ask 
the meaning of it, it should be told them. 

"And the thing in memory of which they were 
set up, was such as could not possibly be imposed 
upon that nation at that time when it was said 
to be done : it was as wonderful and miraculous 
as their passage through the Red Sea. 

"For notice was given to the Israelites the 
day before of this great miracle to be done. 
(Josh. iii. 5.) It was done at noon-day, before 
the whole nation. And when the waters of 
Jordan were divided, it was not at any low ebb, 
but at the time when that river overflowed all 
his banks, (verse 15.) And it was done, not by 
winds, or in length of time which winds must 
take to do it, but all on the sxidden : as soon as 
the 'feet of the priests that bare the ark were 
dipped in the brim of the water, then the waters 
which came down from above stood and rose up 
upon a heap, very far from the city Adam, that 
is beside Zaretan ; and those that came down 
toward the sea of the plain, even the Salt sea, 
failed, and were cut off ; and the people passed 
over right against Jericho. The priests stood in 
the midst of Jordan till all the armies of Israel 
had passed over. And it came to pass, when the 
priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the 
Lord were come up out of the midst of Jordan, 
and the soles of the priests' feet were lifted up 
upon the dry land, that the waters of Jordan 
returned into their place, and flowed over all his 
banks, as they did before. And the people came 
out of Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, 
and encamped in Gilgal, on the east border of 
Jericho. And those twelve stones which they took 
out of Jordan did Joshua pitch in Gilgal. And 
he spake unto the children of Israel, saying, 
When your children shall ask their fathers in time 
to come, saying, What mean these stones ? Then 



shall ye let your children know, saying, Israel 
came over this Jordan on dry land. For the Lord 
your God dried up the waters of Jordan from be- 
fore you, until ye were passed over ; as the Lord 
your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up 
from before us, until we were gone over : that all 
the people of the earth might know the hand of 
the Lord, that it is mighty ; that ye might fear 
the Lord your God for ever.' (Chap, iv., from 
verse 18.) 

"Now, to form our argument, let us suppose 
that there never was any such thing as that 
passage over Jordan : that these stones at Gilgal 
were set up upon some other occasion, in some 
after age ; and then, that some designing man 
invented this book of Joshua, and said that it 
was written by Joshua at that time, and gave 
this stonage at Gilgal for a testimony of the 
truth of it: would not everybody say to him, 
We know the stonage at Gilgal, but we never 
heard before of this reason for it, nor of this 
book of Joshua. Where has it been all this while ? 
And where and how came you, after so many 
ages, to find it ? Besides, this book tells us that 
this passage over Jordan was ordained to be 
taught our children, from age to age ; and, there- 
fore, that they were always to be instructed in 
the meaning of that stonage at Gilgal, as a memo- 
rial of it. But we were never taught it, when we 
were children ; nor did ever teach our children 
any such thing. And it is not likely that it 
could have been forgotten, while so remarkable 
a stonage did continue, which was set up for 
that and no other end ! 

"And if, for the reasons before given, no such 
imposition could be put upon us as to the stonage 
in Salisbury Plain, how much less could it be 
to the stonage at Gilgal ! 

"And if, where we know not the reason of a 
bare naked monument, such a sham reason 
cannot be imposed, how much more is it impos- 
sible to impose upon us in actions and observ- 
ances, which we celebrate in memory of particular 
passages ! How impossible to make us forget 
those passages which we daily commemorate ; 
and persuade us that we had always kept such 
institutions in memory of what we never heard 
of before ; that is, that we knew it before we 
knew it!" 

This able reasoning has never been refuted, 
nor can be ; and if the books of the law must 
have been written by Moses, it is as easy to prove 
that Moses himself could not in the nature of 
the thing have deceived the people by an im- 
posture, and a pretence of miraculous attesta- 
tions, in order, like some later lawgivers among 
the heathens, to bring the people more willingly 
to submit to his institutions. The very instances 



EVIDENCES 3? CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. XII.] 



of miracle he gives rendered this impossible. 
"Suppose," says the same writer, "any man 
should pretend that yesterday he divided the 
Thames, in presence of all the people of Lon- j 
don, and carried the whole city, men, women, 
and children, over to Southwark, on dry land, : 
the waters standing like walls on both sides : I 
say, it is morally impossible that he could per- 
suade the people of London that this was true, 
when every man, woman, and child could con- 
tradict him, and say that this was a notorious 
falsehood, for that they had not seen the Thames 
so divided, nor had gone over on dry land. 

"As to Moses, I suppose it will be allowed 
me that he could not have persuaded 600,000 
men that he had brought them out of Egypt, 
through the Red Sea; fed them forty years, 
without bread, by miraculous manna, and the 
other matters of fact recorded in his books, 
if they had not been true. Because every man's 
senses that was then alive must have contra- 
dicted it. And therefore he must have imposed 
upon all their senses, if he could have made them 
believe it, when it was false and no such things 
done. 

"From the same reason, it was equally im- 
possible for him to have made them receive his 
five books as truth, and not to have rejected 
them as a manifest imposture, which told of all 
these things as done before their eyes, if they 
had not been so done. See how positively he 
speaks to them, Deut. xi. 2 to verse 8 : 'And 
know you this day ; for I speak not with your 
children, which have not known, and which have 
not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, 
his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched- 
out arm, and his miracles, and his acts, which 
he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh 
the king of Egypt, and unto all his land ; and 
what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their 
horses, and to their chariots ; how he made the 
water of the Red Sea to overflow them as they 
pursued after you, and how the Lord hath 
destroyed them unto this day ; and what he did 
unto you in the wilderness, until ye came into 
tliis place ; and what he did unto Dathan and 
Alii ram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: 
how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed 
them up, and their households, and their tents, 
and all the substance that was in their posses- 
sion, in the midst of all Israel: [Jut your eyes 
have seen all the great acts of the Lord which he 
did," etc. 

"From hence we must supposo it impossible 
that, these books of Moses (if an imposture) 
could have !><■< n invented and put upon the people 
who were then alive when all these things wcro 
>:aid to be done." 



69 



By these arguments 1 the genuineness and 
authenticity of the books of Moses are esta- 
blished ; and as to those of the prophets, 
which, with some predictions in the writings of 
Moses, comprise the prophetic branch of the 
evidence of the Divine authority of the revela- 
tions they contain, it can be proved both from 
Jewish tradition, the list of Josephus, the Greek 
translation, and from their being quoted by an- 
cient writers, that they existed many ages before 
several of those events occurred, to which we 
shall refer in the proper place as eminent and 
unequivocal instances of prophetic accomplish- 
ment. This part of the argument will therefore 
be also sufficiently established: the prophecy 
will be shown to have been delivered long before 
the event, and the event will be proved to be a 
fulfilment of the prophecy. A more minute 
examination of the date of the prophetic books 
rather belongs to those who write expressly on 
the canon of Scripture. 

The same author from whom we have already 
largely quoted, [Leslie,) applies his celebrated 
four rules for determining the truth of matters 
of fact in general, with equal force to the facts 
of the Gospel history as to those contained in 
the Mosaic writings. The rules are, "1. That 
the matter of fact be such, as that men's out- 
ward senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges 
of it. 2. That it be done publicly in the face 
of the world. 3. That not only public monu- 
ments be kept up in memory of it, but some out- 
ward actions be performed. 4. That such 
monuments and such actions and observances be 
instituted, and do commence, from the time that 
the matter of fact was done." 

We have seen the manner in which these rules 
are applied to the books of Moses. The author 
thus applies them to the Gospel : — 

"I come now to show, that as in the matters 
of fact of Moses, so likewise all these four 
marks do meet in the matters of fact which are 
recorded in the Gospel of our blessed Saviour. 
And my work herein will be the shorter, because 
all that is said before of Moses and his books 
is every way as applicable to Christ and his 



1 The reasoning of Leslie, so incontrovertible as to the 
last tour books of the Pentateuch, does not so fully apply 
to the book of Genesis. Few, however, will dispu 
genuineness of this, if thai o\ the other books o( Blosee be 
conceded. Thai the boob of Genesis musl have been writ- 
ten prior to tin- other books of the Pentateuch is. however, 
certain, for Exodus constantly refers to events nowhere re- 
corded but in the Wook of Genesis ; and without the boob 
of Genesis, tin- abrupt commencement >'f Exodus would 
have been as unintelligible to the Jews as it would be to 
us. The. Pentateuch must therefore be considered as one 
book, under five divisions, having a mutual coherence and 
dependence* 



70 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



Gospel. His works and his miracles are there 
said to be done publicly in the face of the world, 
as he argued to his accusers — ' I spake openly to 
the world, and in secret have I said nothing.' 
John xviii. 20. It is told, Acts ii. 41, that three 
thousand at one time, and, Acts iv. 4, that above 
five thousand at another time, were converted 
upon conviction of what themselves had seen, 
what had been done publicly before their eyes, 
wherein it was impossible to have imposed upon 
them. Therefore here were the first two rules 
before mentioned. 

"Then for the second two : Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper were instituted as perpetual 
memorials of these things ; and they were not 
instituted in after ages, but at the very time 
when these things were said to be done ; and 
have been observed without interruption, in all 
ages through the whole Christian world, down all 
the way from that time to this. And Christ 
himself did ordain apostles and other ministers 
of his Gospel to preach and administer the 
sacraments, and to govern his Church ; and that 
always, even unto the end of the world. Matt. 
xxviii. 20. Accordingly, they have continued by 
regular succession to this day; and no doubt 
ever shall while the earth shall last. So that 
the Christian clergy are as notorious a matter 
of fact, as the tribe of Levi among the Jews. 
And the Gospel is as much a law to the Chris- 
tians, as the book of Moses to the Jews ; and it 
being part of the matters of fact related in the 
Gospel, that such an order of men were ap- 
pointed by Christ, and to continue to the end of 
the world, consequently, if the Gospel was a 
fiction, and invented (as it must be) in some 
ages after Christ, then, at that time when it was 
first invented, there could be no such order of 
clergy as derived themselves from the institution 
of Christ ; which must give the lie to the Gospel, 
and demonstrate the whole to be false. And the 
matters of fact of Christ being pressed to be 
true, no otherwise than as there was at that 
time (whenever the Deists will suppose the 
gospel to be forged) not only public sacraments 
of Christ's institution, but an order of clergy, 
likewise, of his appointment to administer them ; 
and it being impossible there could be any such 
things before they were invented, it is as im- 
possible that they should be received when in- 
vented. And therefore, by what was said above, 
it was as impossible to have imposed upon man- 
kind in this matter, by inventing of it in after 
ages, as at the time when those things were said 
to be done. 

" The matters of fact of Mohammed, or what 
is fabled of the heathen deities, do all want 
some of the aforesaid four rules, whereby the 



certainty of matters of fact is demonstrated. 
: First, for Mohammed, he pretended to no mira- 
| cles, as he tell us in his Alcoran, c. 6, etc. ; and 
! those which are commonly told of him pass 
; among the Mohammedans themselves but as 
; legendary fables, and, as such, are rejected by 
the wise and learned among them ; as the legends 
, of their saints are in the Church of Rome. 
I See Dr. Prideaux's Life of Mohammed, page 34. 
"But, in the next place, those which are told 
' of him do all want the first two rules before 
j mentioned. For his pretended converse with 
the moon: his Mersa, or night journey from 
Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to heaven, etc., 
were not performed before anybody. We have 
only his own word for them. And they are as 
groundless as the delusions of the Fox or Mug- 
gleton among ourselves. The same is to be 
said (in the second place) of the fables of the 
heathen gods, of Mercury's stealing sheep, Jupi- 
ter's turning himself into a bull, and the like ; 
besides the folly and unworthiness of such sense- 
less pretended miracles. 

"It is true the heathen deities had their 
priests: they had likewise feasts, games, and 
other public institutions in memory of them. But 
all these want the fourth mark, viz., that such 
priesthood and institutions should commence 
from the time that such things as they comme- 
morate were said to be done ; otherwise they 
cannot secure after ages from the imposture, by 
detecting it, at the time when first invented, as 
hath been argued before. But the Bacchanalia, 
and other heathen feasts, were instituted many 
ages after what was reported of these gods was 
said to be done, and therefore can be no proof. 
And the priests of Bacchus, Apollo, etc., were 
not ordained by these supposed gods ; but were 
appointed by others, in after ages, only in 
honor to them. And therefore these orders of 
priests are no evidence to the matters of fact 
which are reported of their gods. 

" Now to apply what has been said. You may 
challenge all the Deists in the world to show any 
action that is fabulous, which has all the four 
rules or marks before mentioned. No, it is im- 
possible. And (to resume a little what is spoken 
to before) the histories of Exodus and the Gospel 
never could have been received if they had not 
been true ; because the institution of the priest- 
hood of Levi, and of Christ ; of the Sabbath, the 
Passover, of Circumcision, of Baptism, and the 
Lord's Supper, etc., are there related as descend- 
ing all the way down from those times, without 
interruption. And it is full as impossible to 
persuade men that they had been circumcised or 
baptized, had circumcised or baptized their chil- 
dren, celebrated passovers, Sabbaths, sacraments, 



CH. XII.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



71 



etc., under the government and administration 
of a certain order of priests, if they had done 
none of these things, as to make them believe 
that they had gone through seas upon dry land, 
seen the dead raised, etc. And without believing 
these, it was impossible that either the Law or 
the Gospel could have been received. 

"And the truth of the matters of fact of 
Exodus and the Gospel, being no otherwise 
pressed upon men than as they have practiced 
such public institutions, it is appealing to the 
senses of mankind for the truth of them ; and 
makes it impossible for any to have invented 
such stories in after ages, without a palpable 
detection of the cheat when first invented: as 
impossible as to have imposed upon the senses 
of mankind at the time when such public matters 
of fact were said to be done." 1 

But other evidence of the truth of the Gospel 
history, besides that which arises from this con- 
vincing reasoning, may be adduced. 

In the first place, the narrative of the evan- 
gelists as to the actions, etc., of Christ, cannot 
be rejected without renouncing all faith in history, 
any more than to deny that he really existed. 

"We have the same reason to believe that the 
evangelists have given us a true history of the 
life and transactions of Jesus, as we have that 
Xenophon and Plato have given us a faithful and 
just narrative of the character and doctrines of 
the excellent Socrates. The sacred writers 
were in every respect qualified for giving a real 
circumstantial detail of the life and religion of 
the person whose memoirs they have transmitted 
down to us. They were the select companions 
and familiar friends of the hero of their story. 
They had free and liberal access to him at all 
times. They attended his public discourses, and 
in his moments of retirement he unbosomed his 
whole soul to them without disguise. They were 
daily witnesses of his sincerity and goodness of 
heart. They were spectators of the amazing 
operations he performed, and of the silent, unos- 
tentatious manner in which he performed them. 
In private he explained to them the doctrines of 
his religion in the most familiar, endearing con- 
verse, and gradually initiated them into the 
principles of his Gospel, as their Jewish preju- 
dices admitted. Some of these writers were his 
inseparable attendants from the commencement 
of his public ministry to his death, and could 
give the world as true and faithful a narrative of 
his character and instructions, as Xenophon was 
enabled to publish of the life and philosophy of 

1 Seo note B at tho end of this chapter, in which the 
.sumo kind of argument is illustrated by the miraculous 
gift of tongues. 



Socrates. If Plato hath been in every respect 
qualified to compose an historical account of the 
behavior of his master in his imprisonment : of 
the philosophic discourses he addressed to his 
friends before he drank the poisonous bowl — as 
he constantly attended him in those unhappy 
scenes, was present at those mournful interviews 2 
— in like manner was the Apostle John fitted for 
compiling a just and genuine narration of the 
last consolatory discourses our Lord delivered to 
his dejected followers, a little before his last 
sufferings, and of the unhappy exit he made, 
with its attendant circumstances, of which he 
was a personal spectator. The foundation of 
these things cannot be invalidated without invali- 
dating the faith of history. No writers have 
enjoyed more propitious, few have ever enjoyed 
such favorable opportunities for publishing just 
accounts of persons and things as the evangelists. 
Most of the Greek and Roman historians lived 
long after the persons they immortalize, and the 
events they record. The sacred writers comme- 
morate actions they saw, discourses they heard, 
persecutions they supported: describe characters 
with which they were familiarly conversant, and 
transactions and scenes in which they themselves 
were intimately interested. The pages of their 
history are impressed with every feature of 
credibility : an artless simplicity characterizes all 
their writings. Nothing can be farther from 
vain ostentation and popular applause. No 
studied arts to dress up a cunningly devised fable. 
No vain declamation after any miracle of our 
Saviour they relate. They record these asto- 
nishing operations with the same dispassionate 
coolness as if they had been common transac- 
tions, without that ostentatious rhodomontade 
which enthusiasts and impostors universally em- 
ploy. They give us a plain, unadorned narration 
of these amazing feats of supernatural power — 
saying nothing previously to raise our expectation, 
or after their performance breaking forth into 
any exclamation, but leaving the reader to draw 
the conclusion. The writers of these books are 
distinguished above all the authors who ever 
wrote accounts of persons and things, for their 
sincerity and integrity. Enthusiasts and impostors 
never proclaim to the world the weakness of their 
understanding, and the defects of their character. 
The evangelists honestly acquaint the reader with 
the loivness of their station, the indigence of their 
circumstances, the inveteracy of their national 
prejudices, their dulness of apprehension, their 



2 Quid dicam do Socrate, (says Oicero,) cujus mortJ Uhv 
chrymari soleo, Plal<»it))i logons. — Dt Natura J\-orum, p. 
829, Edit. Dairies, 1723.— See also Plato's Phcedo, passim, 
particularly pages oil, 812.- -Edit. Fbrsfer, Oxon. 17 H. 



72 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



weakness of faith, their ambitious views, and the 
warm contentions they agitated among themselves. 
They even tell ns how they basely deserted their 
Master by a shameful, precipitate flight, when 
he was seized by his enemies ; and that after Ms 
crucifixion, they had all again returned to their 
former secular employments — for ever resigning 
all the hopes they had once fondly cherished, and 
abandoning the cause in which they had so long 
been engaged, notwithstanding all the proofs 
Avhich had been exhibited, and the conviction 
they had before entertained, that Jesus was the 
Messiah, and that his religion was from God. A 
faithful picture this, held up to the reader for 
him to contemplate the true features of the 
writer's mind. Such men as these were as far 
from being deceived themselves, as they were 
incapable of imposing a falsehood upon others. 
The sacred regard they had for truth appears in 
every thing they relate. They mention, with many 
affecting circumstances, the obstinate, unreason- 
able incredulity of one of their associates — not 
convinced but by ocular tmdsensible demonstration. 
They might have concealed from the world their 
own faults and follies — or, if they had chosen to 
mention them, might have alleged plausible 
reasons to soften and extenuate them. But they 
related without disguise events and facts just as 
they happened, and left them to speak their own 
language. So that to reject a history thus cir- 
cumstanced, and impeach the veracity of writers 
furnished with these qualifications for giving the 
justest accounts of personal characters and 
transactions which they enjoyed the best oppor- 
tunity for accurately observing and knowing, is 
an affront offered to the reason and understand- 
ing of mankind : a solecism against the laws of 
truth and history, which would with equal reason 
lead men to disbelieve every thing related in 
Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus, 
Lrvv, and Tacitus : to confound all history with 
fable and fiction: truth with falsehood, and 
veracity with imposture ; and not to credit any 
thing, how well soever attested : that there were 
such kings as the Stuarts, or such places as Paris 
and Rome, because we are not indulged with 
ocular conviction of them. The truth of the 
Gospel history [independent of the question of 
the inspiration of the sacred writers] rests upon 
the same basis with the truth of other ancient 
books, and its pretensions are to be impartially 
examined by the same rules by which we judge 
of the credibility of all other historical monu- 
ments. And if we compare the merit of the 
sacred writers, as historians, with that of other 
writers, we shall be convinced that they are 
inferior to none who ever wrote, either with 
regard to knowledge of persons, acquaintance with 



' facts, candor of mind, and reverence for truth" — 
Harwood's Introduction to the New Testament. 

A second source of evidence to the truth of 
the history of the evangelists, may be brought 
from the testimonies of adversaries and heathens 
to the leading facts which they record. 

No public contradiction of this history was 
ever put forth by the Jewish rulers to stop the 
progress of a hateful religion, though they had 
every motive to contradict it, both in justification 
of themselves, who were publicly charged as 
"murderers" of the "Just One," and to preserve 
the people from the infection of the spreading 
delusion. No such contradiction has been 
handed down, and none is adverted to or quoted 
by any ancient writer. This silence is not 
unimportant evidence ; but the direct testimonies 
■ to the facts are numerous and important. 

We have already quoted the testimonies of 
Tacitus and Suetonius to the existence of Jesus 
Christ, the Founder of the Christian religion, 
and of his crucifixion in the reign of Tiberius, 
and during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, 
. the time in which the evangelists place that 
| event. Other references to heathen authors who 
! incidentally allude to Christ, his religion, and 
j followers, might be given : such as Martial, 
I Juvenal, Epictetus, Trajan, the younger Pliny, 
I Adrian, Apuleius, Lucian of Samosata, and 
others : some of whom also afford testimonies to 
the destruction of Jerusalem at the time and in 
the circumstances predicted by our Saviour, and 
to the antiquity and genuineness of the books 
of the New Testament. But, as it is well ob- 
served by the learned Lardner, in his " Collection 
of Jewish and Heathen Testimonies," (vol. iv., 
p. 330,) "Among all the testimonies to Chris- 
tianity which we have met with in the first ages, 
none are more valuable and important than the 
testimonies of those learned philosophers who 
wrote against us: Celsus, in the second century, 
Porphyry and Hierocles in the third, and 
Julian in the fourth." Referring to Lardner 
for full information on this point, a brief exhibi- 
tion of the admissions of these adversaries will 
be satisfactory. 

Celsus wrote against Christianity not much 
above one hundred and thirty years after our 
Lord's ascension, and his books were answered 
by the celebrated Origen. The following is a 
summary of the references of this writer to the 
Gospel history, by Leland. (Ansiccr to Chris- 
tianity as old as the Creation, vol. ii., c. 5.) The 
passages at large may be seen in Lardner's 
Testimonies. 

Celsus, a most bitter enemy of Christianity, 
who began in the second century, produces 
many passages out of the Gospels. He repre- 



OH. XII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



73 



sents Jesus to have lived but a few years ago. 
He mentions his being born of a virgin: the 
angel's appearing to Joseph on occasion of Mary's 
being with child : the star that appeared at his 
birth : the wise men that came to worship him 
when an infant; and Herod's massacring the 
children: Joseph's fleeing with the child into 
Egypt by the admonition of an angel : the Holy 
Ghost descending on Jesus like a dove when he 
was baptized by John, and the voice from heaven 
declaring him to be the Son of God: his going 
about with his disciples, his healing the sick and 
lame, and raising the dead: his foretelling his 
own sufferings and resurrection: his being 
betrayed and forsaken by his own disciples : his 
suffering both of his own accord and in obedience 
to his Heavenly Father : his grief and trouble, 
and his praying, Father, if it be possible, let this 
cup pass from me ! the ignominious treatment he 
met with : the robe that was put upon him, the 
crown of thorns, the reed put into his hand : his 
drinking vinegar and gall, and his being scourged 
and crucified : his being seen after his resurrec- 
tion by a fanatical woman, (as he calls her, 
meaning Mary Magdalene,) and by his own 
companions and disciples : his showing them his 
hands that were pierced, the marks of his pun- 
ishment. He also mentions the angels being 
seen at his sepulchre, and that some said it was 
one angel, others that it was two ; by which he 
hints at the seeming variation in the accounts 
given of it by the evangelists. 

"It is true he mentions all these things only 
with a design to ridicule and expose them. But 
they furnish us with an uncontested proof that 
the Gospel was then extant. Accordingly, he 
expressly tells the Christians, These things we 
have produced out of your own writings. (P. 106.) 
And he all along supposeth them to have been 
written by Christ's own disciples, that lived and 
conversed with him ; though he pretends they 
feigned many things for the honor of their 
Master. (Pp. 69, 70.) And he pretends that he could 
tell many other things relative to Jesus beside those 
things that were written of him by his oion disciples ; 
but that he willingly passed by them. (P. 67.) We 
may conclude from his expressions, both that he 
was sensible that these accounts were written by 
Christ's own disciples, (and indeed he never pre- 
tends to contest this,) and that he was not able 
to produce any contrary accounts to invalidate 
them, as he certainly would have dono if it had 
been in his power, since no man ever wrote with 
greater virulence against Christianity than he. 
And, indeed, how was it possible Cor ten or eleven 
publicans and boatmen, as he calls Christ's disci- 
ples by way of contempt, (p. 47,) to have im- 
posed such things on the world if they had not 



been true, so as to persuade such vast multitudes 
to embrace a new and despised religion, contrary 
to all their prejudices and interests, and to be- 
lieve in one that had been crucified ! 

" There are several other things which show 
that Celsus was acquainted with the Gospel. He 
produces several of our Saviour's sayings, there 
recorded, as, that it is easier for a camel to pass 
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to 
enter into the kingdom of God: that to him who 
smites us on one cheek we must turn the other : that 
it is not possible to serve two masters : his precept 
against thoughtfulness for to-morrow, by a com- 
parison drawn from crows and lilies: his fore- 
telling that false prophets should arise and work 
wonders. He mentions also some passages of 
the Apostle Paul, such as these : The world is 
crucified unto me and I unto the world: the wisdom 
of man is foolishness with God: an idol is nothing. 

" The use I would make of all this is, that it 
appears here with an uncontested evidence, by 
the testimony of one of the most malicious and 
virulent adversaries the Christian religion ever 
had, and who was also a man of considerable 
parts and learning, that the writings of the 
evangelists were extant in his time, which was 
the next century to that in which the apostles 
lived ; and that those accounts were written by 
Christ's own disciples, and consequently that 
they were written in the very age in which the 
facts related were done, and when, therefore, it 
would have been the easiest thing in the world 
to have convicted them of falsehood, if they had 
not been true." 

Porphyry flourished about the year 270 — a man 
of great abilities ; and his work against the 
Christians, in fifteen books, was long esteemed 
by the Gentiles, and thought worthy of being 
answered by Eusebius, and others in great re- 
pute for learning. He was well acquainted with 
the books of the Old and New Testaments ; and 
in his writings are plain references to the Gospels 
of Matthew, Mark, John, the Acts of the Apostles, 
and the Epistle to the Galatians, and probable 
references to the other Epistles of St. Paul. 
About the year 308, Ilierocles, a man of learning, 
and a magistrate, wrote against the Christians 
in two books. He was well acquainted with our 
Scriptures, and made many objections to them, 
thereby bcai'ing testimony to their antiquity, 
and to the great respect which was shown them 
by the Christians; for lie has referred both to 
the Gospels and to the Epistles. He mentions 
Peter and Paul by name, and did not deny the 
truth of our Saviour's miracles : but, in order to 
Overthrow the argument which the Christians 
built Upon them, he set up Ihe reputed miracles 

of Apollonius Tyaneeus to rival them. Ihe Em 



n 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



peror Julian, who succeeded Coustantius in the 
year 361, wrote also against the Christians, and 
in his work has undesignedly borne a valuable 
testimony to the history and books of the New 
Testament. He allows that Jesus was born in 
the reign of Augustus, at the time of a taxing 
made in Judea by Cyrenius. That the Christian 
religion had its rise, and began to be propa- 
gated, in the times of the Roman emperors 
Tiberius and Claudius. He bears witness to the 
genuineness and authenticity of the four Gospels 
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the Acts 
of the Apostles. And he so quotes them as to 
intimate that these were the only historical books 
received by Christians as of authority ; and the 
only authentic memoirs of Jesus Christ and his 
apostles, and the doctrines preached by them. 
He allows the early date of the Gospels, and even 
argues for them. He quotes or plainly refers to 
the Acts of the Apostles, as already said : to St. 
Paul's Epistles to the Romans, to the Corinthians, 
and to the Galatians. He does not deny the 
miracles of Jesus Christ, but allows him to have 
healed the blind, and the lame, and demoniacs, 
and to have rebuked the winds, and to have 
walked upon the waves of the sea. He en- 
deavors, indeed, to diminish those works, but in 
vain. He endeavors also to lessen the number 
of the early believers in Jesus, but acknowledges 
that there were multitudes of such men in Greece 
and Italy before St. John wrote his Gospel. He 
likewise affects to diminish the quality of the 
early believers ; and yet acknowledges that, be- 
sides men-servants and maid-servants, Cornelius, a 
Roman centurion at Cesarea, and Sergius Paulus, 
proconsul of Cyprus, were converted to the faith 
of Jesus before the end of the reign of Claudius. 
And he often speaks with great indignation of 
Peter and Paul, those two great apostles of Jesus, 
and successful preachers of his gospel ; so that, 
upon the whole, he has undesignedly borne wit- 
ness to the truth of many things recorded in the 
books of the New Testament. He aimed to over- 
throw the Christian religion, but has confirmed 
it. His arguments against it are perfectly harm- 
less, and insufficient to unsettle the weakest 
Christian. 

The quotations from Porphyry, Hierocles, and 
Julian, may be consulted in Lardner, who thus 
sums up his observations on their testimony : — 

"They bear a fuller and more valuable testi- 
mony to the books of the New Testament, and to 
the facts of the evangelical history, and to the 
affairs of Christians, than all our other witnesses 
beside. They proposed to overthrow the argu- 
ments for Christianity. They aimed to bring 
back to Gentilism those who had forsaken it, and 
to put a stop to the progress of Christianity, by 



[PART I. 

the further addition of new converts. But in 
those designs they had very little success in their 
own times ; and their works, composed and pub- 
lished in the early days of Christianity, are now 
a testimony in our favor, and will be of use in 
the defence of Christianity to the latest ages. 

" One thing more which may be taken notice 
of is this : that the remains of our ancient adversa- 
ries confirm the present prevailing sentiments of 
Christians concerning those books of the New 
Testament which we call canonical, and are in 
the greatest authority with us. For their writ- 
ings show that those very books, and not any 
others now generally called apocryphal, are the 
books which always were in the highest repute 
with Christians, and were then the rule of their 
faith, as they are now of ours." 

To the same effect are the observations of 
Paley. These testimonies "prove that neither 
Celsus in the second, Porphyry in the third, nor 
Julian in the fourth century, suspected the au- 
thenticity of these books, or even insinuated 
that Christians were mistaken in the authors to 
whom they ascribed them. Not one of them ex- 
pressed an opinion upon this subject different 
from that which is holden by Christians. And 
when we consider how much it would have 
availed them to cast a doubt upon this point if 
they could, and how ready they showed them- 
selves to take every advantage in their power, 
and that they were men of learning and inquiry, 
their concession, or rather their suffrage upon 
the subject, is extremely valuable." 

That the facts and statements recorded in the 
evangelic history were not forgeries of a subse- 
quent period, is made also still more indubitable 
from the fact that the four Gospels and the Acts 
of the Apostles are quoted or alluded to by a 
series of Christians, beginning with those who 
were contemporary with the apostles, or who im- 
mediately followed, and proceeding in close and 
regular succession from their time to the present. 
" The medium of proof stated in this proposi- 
tion," observes Dr. Paley, "is of all others the 
most unquestionable, and is not diminished by 
the lapse of ages. Bishop Burnet, in the His- 
tory of his own Times, inserts various extracts 
from Lord Clarendon's History. One such asser- 
tion is a proof that Lord Clarendon's History was 
extant when Bishop Burnet wrote, that it had 
been read and received by him as a work of Lord 
Clarendon's, and regarded by him as an authentic 
account of the transactions which it relates ; and 
it will be a proof of these points a thousand years 
hence. The application of this argument to the 
Gospel history is obvious. If the different books 
which are received by Christians as containing 
this history are quoted by a series of writers as 



CH. XII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



75 



genuine in respect of their authors, and as au- 
thentic in respect to their narrative, up to the age 
in which the writers of them lived, then it is 
clear that these books must have had an exist- 
ence previous to the earliest of those writings in 
which they are quoted, and that they were then 
admitted as authentic." " Their genuineness is 
made out, as well by the general arguments which 
evince the genuineness of the most indisputed 
remains of antiquity, as also by peculiar and 
specific proofs, by citations from them in writ- 
ings belonging to a period immediately con- 
tiguous to that in which they were published : 
by the distinguished regard paid by early Chris- 
tians to the authority of these books: (which 
regard was manifested by their collecting of 
them into a volume, appropriating to that vol- 
ume titles of peculiar respect, translating them 
into various languages, disposing them into har- 
monies, writing commentaries upon them, and 
still more conspicuously by the reading of them 
in their public assemblies in all parts of the 
world:) by a universal agreement with respect 
to these books, while doubts were entertained 
concerning some others: by contending sects 
appealing to them : by many formal catalogues 
of these, as of certain and authoritative writings 
published in different and distant parts of the 
world: lastly, by the absence or defect of the 
above cited topics of evidence, when applied to 
any other histories of the same subject." — Pa- 
ley's Evidences, cap. x. 

All the parts of this argument may be seen 
clearly made out by passages quoted from the 
writers of the primitive ages of the Christian 
Church, in Dr. Lardner's "Credibility," Dr. 
Paley's "Evidences," and many other writers in 
defence of Christianity. It is exhibited in great 
force also in the first volume of Home's "Intro- 
duction to the Study of the Scriptures." 



of Egypt, the Pentateuch, with the other books of the Old 
Testament, was translated into Greek, for the use of the 
Alexandrian Jews ; and from the almost universal preva- 

! lence of that language, it henceforth became very widely 
disseminated, and was thus rendered accessible to the 
learned and inquisitive of every country. 

"Now, that Greek translation, which is still extant, and 

! which is in the hands of almost every person, demonstrates 



Note A. 



"The documents which claim to have been thus handed 
down to posterity are the five books attributed to Moses 
himself, and usually denominated the Pentateuch. Now, 
the question before us is, whether they were indeed written 
synchronically with the Exodus, or whether they were 
composed in the name of Moses, at a much later period. 

"That the Jews have acknowledged tho authenticity of 
the Pentateuch, from the present day to the era of our 
Lord's nativity, a period of more than eighteen centuries, 
admits not of a possibility of a doubt. But this era is long 
posterior to that of Moses himself! if will be necessary, 
therefore, In order to establish the point under discussion, 
to travel backward, step by step, so Ear as we can safely 
penetrate, according to tho established rules of moral 
evidence. 

"About two hundred and seventy se\eu years before tho. 

Christian era, in the reign of Ptolemj Philadelphusj king 



that the Hebrew Pentateuch must have existed two hun- 
dred and seventy-seven years before Christ, because there 
is that correspondency between the two which amply 
proves that the former must have been a version of the 
latter. But, if it certainly existed two hundred and seventy- 
seven years before Christ, it must have existed in the days 
of Ezra, at the time of the return from Babylon, in the 
year before Christ five hundred and thirty-six: because 
there is no point between those two epochs to which, with 
a shadow of probability, we can ascribe its composition. 
It existed, therefore, in the year five hundred and thirty- 
six before the Christian era. 

" Thus we have gained one retrogressive step : let us next 
see whether, with equal certainty, we can gain another. 

"As it cannot be rationally denied that the Pentateuch 
has been in existence ever since the return of the Jews 
from Babylon, in the year five hundred and thirty-six 
before the Christian era, some have thence been pleased to 
contend that it was the work of Ezra ; being a digested 
compilation of the indistinct and fabulous traditions of that 
people, which, like most nations of antiquity, they possessed 
in great abundance. 

" To such an opinion, when thoroughly sifted, there are 
insuperable objections, however specious it may appear to 
a hasty observer. 

" In the book of Ezra, the law of Moses, the man of God, 
is specifically referred to, as a well-known written document 
then actually existing; and, in the succeeding book of 
Nehemiah, we have an ample account of the mode in which 
that identical written document was openly read to the 
people, under the precise name of the Boole of the laiv of 
Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. Nor is this 
all: it was not that Ezra produced a new volume, and 
called upon the Jews to receive it as the authentic law of 
Moses; but the people themselves called upon Ezra to bring 
forth and read that book, as a work with which they had 
long been familiarly acquainted. The law of Moses, there- 
fore, must have been well knowm to exist in writing pre- 
vious to the return from Babylon ; and as Ezra could not 
have produced under that name a mere compilation of oral 
traditions, so neither could he have suppressed the ancient 
volume of the law, nor have set forth instead of it that 
volume which the Jews have ever since received as the 
authentic Pentateuch. His own book affords proof posi- 
tive that some written law of Moses was known previously 
to have existed ; and the call of tho people, that it should 
be read to them, demonstrates that it could not long have 
perished; for if the work had been confessedly lost lor 
many years, tho people could not have called for that which 
neither they nor their fathers had ever beheld. If. then, 
it were suppressed by Ezra, in favor of his own spurious 
composition, ho must both have contrived to make himsell 
master of every extant copy of the genuine work, and he 
must have persuaded a whole people to receive as genuine. 
what almost every man anion-' them must immediately 
have perceived to bo spurious. For, it" the genuine work 
were in existence down to (he very time of Kzia. a point 
clearly involved in the demand <A' the people to have it 
read io (hem; and if the people had Ion- been aCCUStomed 
to hear it read to them, a point equally implied in their 

recorded demand upon Ezra, thej musl afl have ben ade- 
quately acquainted with its contents ; and the higher ranks 
among them musl have repeatedly perused, and must 
therefore have kno'vt d the whole of it. Just as Intimately aa 
Basra could do himself. But, what was thus universally 



'6 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART 



I. 



familiar could be no more set aside by the fiat of an indi- 
vidual in favor of bis own spurious composition, than the 
Pentateuch could now be set aside throughout Christendom, 
in favor of some newly produced volume which claimed to 
be the genuine law of Moses. Add to this., that when the 
foundations of the second temple were laid, many persons 
were alive who well remembered the first. These conse- 
quently must have known whether there was or was not a 
i law of Moses anterior to the captivity : nor could 
they be deceived by the production of any novel composi- 
tion by Ezra. 

a Such is the evidence afforded by the very books cf Ezra 
and Xehemiah, to the existence of a written law of Moses 
prior to the return from Babylon, of a law familiarly 
-: to the whole body of the people. But there is yet 
another evidence to the same purpose, analogous to that 
furnished by the Greek translation of the seventy. 

"We have now extant two Hebrew copies of the law of 
Moses : the one received by the Jews, the other acknow- 
ledged by the Samaritans : each maintaining that their own 
is the genuine record. Now, if we examine these two 
copies, we shall find their coincidence throughout to be 
such, that we cannot doubt a moment as to their original 
identity in every word, and- in every sentence. 

"We read, that after the king of Assyria had deported 
the ten tribes, and had colonized their territories with a 
mixed multitude from various parts of his dominions, the 
new settlers were infested by the incursions of wild beasts. 
This calamity, agreeably to the prevalent notion of local 
tutelary gods, they attributed to their not worshipping the 
god of the land after his own prescribed manner. To 
remedy the defect, therefore, one of the deported Levitical 
priests was sent to them, that he might teach them, as the 
Assyrian monarch expi-essed himself, the manner of the god 
of the land. The priest accordingly came among them, and 
dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear 
Jehovah: but while they duly received his instructions, 
they mixed the service of the true God with the service of 
their native idols. Hence, so far as that particular was 
concerned, we are informed that they neither did after their 
statiftes, nor after their ordinances, nor after the law and 
commandment which Jehovah commanded tJie children cf 
Jacob. 

"Xow. it is obvious that the whole of this account sup- 
poses them to have a copy of the Pentateuch : for, if the 
priest were to instruct them in the law of the Lord, he 
would, of course, communicate to them a copy of that law : 
and though their ancient superstitions led them to disregard 
its prohibitions, still it could not have been properly said 
of them, that they neither did after their statin-: ■*. nor after 
their ordinances, nor after the law and commandment which 
Jehovah commanded, the children of Jacob, if all the while 
they were wholly unacquainted with those statutes and 
those ordinances, and with that law, and with that com- 
mandment. It is manifest, therefore, that they must at that 
time have received the copy of the Pentateuch, which they 
always afterward religiously preserved. But this copy is 
the very same as that which the Jews and ourselves still 
receive. 3 imaritanfl received it some 

years prior even to the Babylonic captivity of Judah. and 
as it is the very same code as that which some would fain 
attribute to Ezra, we may be sure that that learned scribe 
could not possibly have been its author, but that he has 
handed down to us the genuine law of Moses, with the 
utmost good faith and integrity. 

"Here we cannot but observe the providence of God in 
raising up so unobjectionable a testimony as that of the 
Samaritans. They and the Jews cordially hated each other, 
and th :• >py of the Pentateuch. Hence, 

had there been any disposition to tamper with the text, 
they acted as a mutual check : and the result has been, 
that perhaps not a wilful alteration can be shown, except 
the text relative to GerMm and Ebal. 



| "The universal admission of the Pentateuch as the in- 
spired law of Moses, throughout the whole commonwealth 
I of Israel, prior to its disruption into two hostile kingdoms, 
the magnificent temple of Solomon, and the whole ritual 
j attached to it, plainly depends altogether upon the pre- 
riously existing Pentateuch ; and that code so strictly pro- 
i hibits more than one practice of Solomon, that, even to 
i say nothing of the general objection from novelty, it is 
| incredible either that he should have been its author, or 
that it should have been written under his sanction and 
authority. 

•'•'As little can we, with any degree of probability, ascribe 
it to David. His life was occupied with almost incessant 
troubles and warfare ; and it is difficult to conceive how a 
book written by that prince could, in the space of a very 
few years, be universally received as the inspired composi- 
tion of Moses, when no person had ever previously heard 
g left any legislative code behind him. 
"The Pentateuch might be more plausibly given to 
j Samuel than to either of those two princes ; but this sup- 
I position will not stand for a moment the test of rational 
] inquiry. "We shall still have the same difficulty to contend 
j with as before : we shall still have to point out how it was 
! possible that Samuel should persuade all Israel to adopt, as 
i the inspired and authoritative law of Moses, a mere modern 
■ composition of his own, which no person had ever pre- 
viously heard of. 

'•' We have now ascended to within less than four centu- 
ries after the exodus from Egypt, and the alleged promul- 
gation of the law from Mount Sinai ; and, from Ezra to Sam- 
uel, we have found no person to whom the composition of 
the Pentateuch can, with any show of reason or probability, 
be assigned. The only remaining question is, whether it 
can be thought to have been written during the three 
hundred and fifty-six years which elapsed between the 
entrance of the Israelites into Palestine, and the appoint- 
ment of Saul to be king of Israel. 

"Now, the whole history which we have of that period 
utterly forbids such a supposition. The Israelites, though 
perpetually lapsing into idolatry, are uniformly described 
as acknowledging the authority of a written law of I 
and this law, from generation to generation, is stated to be 
the directory by which the judges governed the people. 
Thus, Samuel expressly refers to a well-known command- 
ment of Jehovah, and to the Divine legation of Mbses and 
Aaron, in a speech which he made to the assembled Israel- 
ites. Thus, the man of God, in his prophetic threat to Eh", 
similarly refers to the familiar circumstance recorded in 
the Pentateuch, that the house of his ancestor had been 
chosen to the pontificate out of all the tribes of Israel. 
Thus, when the nations are enumerated which were left to 
prove the people, it is said that they were left for this pur- 
pose, that it might be known whether the Israelites would 
hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah, which he 
commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. Thus, 
Joshua is declared to have written the book which bears 
his name, as a supplement to a prior book, which is de- 
nominated the book of the law of God. Thus, likewise, he 
specially asserts, that this book of the law of God is the book 
of the law of Moses: speaking familiarly of precepts which 
are written in that book: represents himself as reading its 
contents to all the assembled people, so that none of them 
could be ignorant of its purport; and mentions his writing 
a copy of it in the presence of the children of Israel. And 
thus, finally, we hear of the original, whence that copy is 
professed to have been taken, in the volume of the Penta- 
teuch itself; for we are there told, that Moses with his own 
hand wrote the words of this law in a book; and that he 
then commanded the Levites to take this book of the law 
and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant, that it 
might be there for a witness in all succeeding ages against 
the Israelites, in case they should violate its precepts.'" — 
(Abridged from Faber's Horn: Mosaicce.) 



CH. XII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



77 



Note B. 

" In events so public and so signal, there was no room 
for mistake or deception. Of all the miracles recorded in 
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, there is not 
one of which the evidence is so multiplied as that of the 
descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; for it 
rests not on the testimony of those, whether many or few, 
who were all with one accord in one place. It is testified 
by all Jerusalem, and by the natives of regions far distant 
from Jerusalem, for there were then, says the historian, 
'dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every 
nation under heaven ; and when the inspiration of the dis- 
ciples was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and 
were all confounded, because that every man heard them 
speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and 
marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these 
who speak Galileans? and how hear we every man in our 
own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and 
Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, 
and in Judea, and Cappadocia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, 
and the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of 
Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear 
them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.' 

"It hath been objected by infidelity to the resurrection 
of Christ, that he ought to have appeared publicly, wher- 
ever he had appeared before his crucifixion ; but here is a 
miracle displayed much further than the resurrection of 
Christ could have been by his preaching openly, and 
working miracles for forty days in the- temple and syna- 
gogues of Jerusalem, as he had done formerly ; and this 
miracle is so connected with the resurrection, that if the 
apostles speaking a variety of tongues be admitted, the 
resurrection of Jesus cannot be denied. In reply to those 
(probably the natives of Jerusalem) who, imagining that 
the apostles uttered gibberish, charged them with being 
full of new wine, St. Peter said, ' Ye men of Judea, and all 
ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and 
hearken to my words ; for these men are not drunken, as 
yc suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by 
miracles, and signs, and wonders, which God did by him 
in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know : him, being 
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge 
of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified 
and slain. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are 
all witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God 
exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of 
the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see 
and hear.' 

" Thus, by the miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost, were the resurrection and ascension 
of Christ proved to a variety of nations of Asia, Africa, 
and Europe, all the quarters of the globe which were then 
known, as completely as if he had actually appeared among 
that mixed multitude in Jerusalem, reproved the high 
priest and council of the Jews for their unbelief and hard- 
ness of heart, and then ascended in their presence to 
heaven. They had such evidence as was incontrovertible, 
that St. Peter and the other apostles wero inspired by the 
Spirit of Cod: they could not but know, as every Theist 
admits, that the Spirit of God never was, nor ever will bo, 
shed abroad to enable any order of men to pro] 
hood with supcess: ono of those who, by this inspiration, 
\\fv>: speaking correctly a variety of tongues, assured them 
that Jesus <>f Nazareth, whom they had Blain, was raised 
from the dead, and exalted to the right hand of God; and 
that the same Jesus had, according to his promise, shed 
abroad on the apostles that which they both saw and heard. 

iquence of ail this, we are told, was, that throe 

thousand of his audience were Instantly converted to the 
faith, and (lie same day incorporated into the Church by 
baptism. 



" Would any in his senses have written a narrative of 
such events as these at the very time when they are said 
to have happened, and in any one of those countries, to 
the inhabitants of which he appeals as witnesses of their 
truth, if he had not been aware that their truth could not 
be called in question ? Would any forger of such a book 
as the Acts of the Apostles, at a period near to that in 
which he relates that such astonishing events had hap- 
pened, have needlessly appealed, for the truth of his 
narrative, to the people of all nations, and thus gone out 
of his way to furnish his readers with innumerable means 
of detecting his imposture ? At no period, indeed, could 
forged books, such as the four Gospels and the Acts of the 
Apostles, have been received as authentic, unless all the 
events which they record, whether natural or supernatural, 
had been believed, all the principal doctrines received, 
and all the rites of religion which they prescribe practiced, 
from the very period at which they represent the Son of 
God as sojourning on earth, laying the foundation of his 
Church, dying on a cross, rising from the dead, and ascend- 
ing into heaven. The argument cannot, perhaps, be 
employed to prove the authenticity of all the epistles 
which make so great a part of the New Testament ; but it 
is certainly as applicable to some of them as it is to the 
Gospels, and the book called the Acts of the Apostles. 

" The apostles, as Michaelis justly observes, (Introduction 
to the New Testament, chap. ii. sect. 1,) ' frequently allude, 
in their epistles, to the gift of miracles, which they had 
communicated to the Christian converts by the imposition 
of hands, in confirmation of the doctrine delivered in their 
speeches and writings, and sometimes to miracles, which 
they themselves had performed.' Now, if these epistles are 
really genuine, the miracles referred to must certainly 
have been wrought, and the doctrines preached must have 
been Divine ; for no man in his senses would have written 
to large communities, that he had not only performed 
miracles in their presence, in confirmation of the Divine 
origin of certain doctrines, but that he had likewise com- 
municated to them the same extraordinary endowments. 
Or if we can suppose any human being to have possessed 
sufficient effrontery to write in this manner to any com- 
munity, it is obvious that, so far from gaining credit to his 
doctrine by such assertions, if not known to be true, ho 
would have exposed himself to the utmost ridicule and con- 
tempt, and have ruined the cause which he attempted to 
support by such absurd conduct. 

" St. Paul's first Epistle to the Thessalonians is addressed 
to a Christian Church, which he had lately founded, and to 
which he had preached the gospel only three Sabbath 
days. A sudden persecution obliged him to quit this com- 
munity before he had given to it its proper degree of con- 
sistence; and, what is of consequence in the present 
instance, he was protected neither by the power of the 
magistrate nor the favor of the vulgar. A pretended won- 
der-worker, who has once drawn the populace to his party, 
may easily perform his exploits, and safely proclaim them. 
But this very populace, at the instigation of the Jews, had 
excited the insurrection which obliged St. Paul to quit the 
town. Ho sends therefore \o the Thessalonians, who had 
received the gospel, but whose faith, he apprehended, 
might waver through persecution, authorities and proofs 
of his Divine mission, of which authorities the flrsl and the 
chief are miracles and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, l Thess. 
i. 5-10A is it possible, now, that St. Paul, without forfeit- 
ing all pretensions to common sense, could, when writing 
to a Church which he had lately established, have spoken 
of miracles performed, and gifts of the Holy Ghost com- 
municated, if no member of thai Church had seen the 
received the other; nay. ifmanj members had no t 



Hardy's Greek Testament; Whitby on the | 
with Schleusner ami Parkhurst's Lexicons on the word 
dvvafiig. 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



■witnessed both the performance and the effusions of the 
Holy Ghost ? But it is equally impossible that the epistle, 
making this appeal to miracles and spiritual gifts, could 
have been received as authentic, if forged in the name of 
St. Paul, at any future period, during the existence of a 
Christian Church at Thessalonica. In the first two chap- 
ters it represents its author and two of his companions as • 
having been lately in that city, and appeals to the Church 
for the manner in which they had conducted themselves | 
while there, and for the zeal and success with which they ! 
had preached the gospel, and it concludes with these awful : 
words: -I adjure you (6pKL& v/uar) by the Lord, that i 
this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren ;' i. e., all the 
Christians of the coninrunity. Had St. Paul, and Timo- 
theus, and Sylvanus, never been in Thessalonica, or had 
they conducted themselves in any respect differently from 
what they are said to have done in the first two chapters, 
these chapters would have convicted the author of this 
epistle of forgery, at whatever time it had made its first 
appearance. Had they been actually there, and preached, 
and wrought miracles, just as they are said to have done ; 
and had some impostor, knowing this, forged the epistle 
before us at a considerable distance of time, the adjuration 
at the end of it must instantly have detected the forgery. 
Every Thessalonian Christian of common sense would have I 
said, ' How came we never to hear of this epistle before ? '. 
Its author represents himself and two of his friends as 
having converted us to the faith a very short time before it 
was written and sent to us, and he charges those to whom 
it was immediately sent in the most solemn manner pos- 
sible, that they should cause it to be read to every one of 
us : no Christian in Thessalonica would, in a matter of this 
kind, have dared to disobey the authority of an apostle, ; 
especially when enforced by so awful an adjuration : and 
yet neither we nor our fathers ever heard of this epistle, ! 
till now that Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timotheus are all ' 
dead, and therefore incapable of either confirming or re- ] 
futing its authenticity !' Such an epistle, if not genuine, j 
could never have been received by any community. 

" The same apostle, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
corrects the abuse of certain spiritual gifts, particularly 
that of speaking divers kinds of tongues, and prescribes 
rules for the employment of these supernatural talents : 
he enters into a particular detail of them, as they existed 
in the Corinthian Church: reasons on their respective 
worth and excellence : says that they were limited in their 
duration, that they were no distinguishing mark of Divine 
favor, nor of so great importance as faith and virtue, the 
love of God, and charity to our neighbors. Now, if this 
epistle was really written by St. Paul to the Corinthians, i 
and they had actually received no spiritual gifts, no ' 
power, imparted by extraordinary means, of speaking 
foreign languages, the proper place to be assigned him 
were not among impostors, but among those who had lost 
their understanding. A juggler may deceive by the dexte- 
rity of his hands, and persuade the ignorant and the 
credulous that more than human means are requisite for 
the performance of his extraordinary feats; but he will 
hardly persuade those whose understandings remain unim- j 
paired, that he has likewise communicated to his spectators 
the power of working miracles, and of speaking languages 
which they had never learned, were they conscious of 
their inability to perform the one, or to speak the other. If 
the epistle, therefore, was written during the life of St. 
Paul, and received by the Corinthian Church, it is im- 
possible to doubt that St. Paul was its author, and that 
among the Corinthians were prevalent those spiritual gifts 
of which he labors to correct the abuse. If those gifts 
were never prevalent among the Corinthian Christians, and 
this epistle was not seen by them until the next age, it 
could not have been received by the Corinthian Church as 
the genuine writing of the apostle, because the members j 
of that Church must have been aware that if those gifts, | 



of which it speaks, had been really possessed, and so gen- 
erally displayed by their fathers as it represents them to 
have been, some of themselves would surely have heard 
their fathers mention them ; and as the epistle treats of 
some of the most important stibjeets that ever occupied the 
mind of man, the introduction of death into the world 
through Adam, and the resurrection of the dead through 
Christ, they must have inferred that their fathers would 
not have secreted from them, their children, a treatise on 
topics so interesting to the whole human race." — Gleig-'s 
Edition of Stack-house's History of the Bible, vol. iii., Intro., 
p. 11, etc. 



«» 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THE UXCORRTJPTED PRESERVATION OP THE BOOKS 
OF SCRIPTURE. 

The historical evidence of the antiquity and 
genuineness of the books ascribed to Moses, and 
those which contain the history of Christ and the 
establishment of his religion, being thus com- 
plete, the integrity of the copies at present re- 
ceived is the point next in question. 

With respect to the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament : the list of Josephus, the Septuagint 
translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, are 
sufficient proofs that the books which are re- 
ceived by us as sacred are the same as those 
received by the Jews and Samaritans long before 
the Christian era. For the New Testament: 
beside the quotations from almost all the books 
now included in that volume, and references to 
them by name in the earliest Christian writers, 
catalogues of authentic Scriptures were pub- 
lished at very early periods, which, says Dr. 
Paley, "though numerous, and made in coun- 
tries at a wide distance from one another, differ 
very little — differ in nothing material, and all 
contain the four Gospels. 

" In the writings of Origen which remain, and 
in some extracts preserved by Eusebius, from 
works of his which are now lost, there are enu- 
merations of the books of Scripture, in which the 
four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are 
distinctly and honorably specified, and in which 
no books appear beside what are now received." 
(Lard. Cred., vol. iii., p. 234, et seq., yoI. viii., 
p. 196.) The date of Origen's works is A. D. 
230. 

"Athanasius, about a century afterward, de- 
livered a catalogue of the books of the Xew 
Testament in form, containing our Scriptures 
and no others ; of which he says, ' In these alone 
the doctrine of religion is taught: let no man 
add to them, or take any thing from them.' " — 
Lard. Cred., vol. viii., p. 223. 

"About twenty years after Athanasius, Cyril, 
Bishop of Jerusalem, set forth a catalogue of 



OH. XIII.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



79 



the books of Scripture publicly read at that time 
in the Church of Jerusalem, exactly the same 
as ours, except that the 'Kev elation' is omitted." 
— Lard. Cred., vol. viii., p. 270. 

"And, fifteen years after Cyril, the Council of 
Laodicea delivered an authoritative catalogue of 
canonical Scripture, like Cyril's, the same as 
ours, with the omission of the 'Kevelation.' 

"Catalogues now become frequent. Within 
thirty years after the last date, that is, from the 
year 363 to near the conclusion of the fourth cen- 
tury, we have catalogues by Epiphanius, (Lard. 
Cred., vol. viii., p. 368,) by Gregory Nazianzen, 
(Lard. Cred., vol. ix., p. 132,) by Philaster, 
Bishop of Brescia, in Italy, (Lard. Cred., vol. ix., 
p. 373,) by Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, 
all, as they are sometimes called, clean cata- 
logues, (that is, they admit no books into the 
number beside what we now receive,) and all, 
for every purpose of historic evidence, the same 
as ours. 1 

"Within the same period, Jerome, the most 
learned Christian writer of his age, delivered a 
catalogue of the books of the New Testament, 
recognizing every book now received, with the 
intimation of a doubt concerning the Epistle to 
the Hebrews alone, and taking not the least 
notice of any book which is not now received." 
— Lard. Cred., vol. x. p. 77. 

" Contemporary with Jerome, who lived in 
Palestine, was Saint Augustin, in Africa, who 
published likewise a catalogue, without joining 
to the Scriptures, as books of authority, any 
other ecclesiastical writing whatever, and with- 
out omitting one which we at this day acknow- 
ledge." — Lard. Cred., vol. x. p. 213. 

"And with these concurs another contempo- 
rary writer, Ruffin, presbyter of Aquileia, whose 
catalogue, like theirs, is perfect and unmixed, 
and concludes with these remarkable words : 
' These are the volumes which the fathers have 
included in the canon, and out of which they 
Would have us prove the doctrine of our faith.' " 
— Lard. Cred., vol. x. p. 187. 

This, it is true, only proves that the books are 
substantially the same ; but the evidence is abun- 
dant that they have descended to us without any 
material alteration whatever. 

"1. Before that event, [the time of Christ,] the 
regard which was paid to them by the Jews, 
especially to the law, would render any forgery 
or material change in their contents impossible. 
The law having been the deed by which the land 
of Canaan was divided among the Israelites, it 

i Epiphanius omits the Acts of the Apostles. This must 
have been an accidental mistake, either in him or in some 
copyist of his work; for ho elsewhero expressly refers to 
this book, and ascribes it to Luke. 



is improbable that this people who possessed 
that land would suffer it to be altered or falsified. 
The distinction of the twelve tribes, and their 
separate interests, made it more difficult to 
alter their law than that of other nations less 
jealous than the Jews. Further, at certain 
stated seasons the law was publicly read before 
all the people of Israel, Deut. xxxi. 9-13; Josh, 
viii. 34, 35 ; Neh. viii. 1-5 ; and it was appointed 
to be kept in the ark, for a constant memorial 
against those who transgressed it. Deut. xxxi. 
26. Their king was required to write him a copy 
of this law in a book, out of that which is before 
the priests, the Levites, and to read therein all the 
days of his life, Deut. xvii. 18, 19 : their priests 
also were commanded to teach the children of 
Lsrael all the statutes which the Lord had spoken 
to them by the hand of Moses, Levit. x. 11 ; and 
parents were charged not only to make it familiar 
to themselves, but also to teach it diligently to 
their children, Deut. xvii. 18, 19 ; beside which, 
a severe prohibition was annexed against either 
making any addition to or diminution from the 
law, Deut. iv. 2 ; xii. 32. Now such precepts as 
these could not have been given by an impostor 
who was adding to it, and who would wish men 
to forget rather than enjoin them to remember 
it ; for, as all the people were obliged to know 
and observe the law under severe penalties, they 
were in a manner the trustees and guardians of 
the law, as well as the priests and Levites. The 
people, who were to teach their children, must 
have had copies of it ; the priests and Levites must 
have had copies of it ; and the magistrates must 
have had copies of it, as being the law of the 
land. Further, after the people were divided 
into two kingdoms, both the people of Israel and 
those of Judah still retained the same book of 
the law ; and the rivalry or enmity that subsisted 
between the two kingdoms, prevented either of 
them from altering or adding to the law. After 
the Israelites were carried captive into Assyria, 
other nations were placed in the cities of Samaria 
in their stead ; and the Samaritans received the 
Pentateuch, either from the priest who was sent 
by order of the king of Assyria to instruct them 
in the manner of the God of the land, 2 Kings xvii. 
26, or, several years afterward, from the hands 
of Manasseh, the son of Joiada, the high-priest, 
who was expelled from Jerusalem by Nehemiah, 
for marrying the daughter of Sanballat, the 
governor of Samaria; and who was constituted 
by Sanballat the first high-priest of the temple 
at Samaria. (Neh. xiii. 28; Joseph us Ant Jiul. 
lib. xi. c. 8; Bishop Newton's WarkSy vol. i. p. 28.) 
Now, by ono or both of these means the Samari- 
tans had the Pentateuoh as well as the Jews; 
but with this difference, that the Samaritan 



80 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



Pentateuch, was in the old Hebrew or Phenician 
characters, in which it remains to this day; 
whereas the Jewish copy was changed into 
Chaldee characters, (in which it also remains to 
this day,) which were fairer and clearer than 
the Hebrew, the Jews having learned the Chal- 
dee language during their seventy years, abode 
in Babylon. The jealousy and hatred which 
subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans made 
it impracticable for either nation to corrupt or 
alter the text in any thing of consequence with- 
out certain discovery; and the general agree- 
ment between the Hebrew and Samaritan copies 
of the Pentateuch which are now extant, is such 
as plainly demonstrates that the copies were 
originally the same. Nor can any better evidence 
be desired that the Jewish Bibles have not been 
corrupted or interpolated than this very book of 
the Samaritans ; which, after more than two 
thousand years' discord between the two nations, 
varies as little from the other as any classic 
author in less tract of time has disagreed from 
itself by the unavoidable slips and mistakes of 
so many transcribers. 1 

'•'After the return of the Jews from the 
Babylonish captivity, the books of the law and 
the prophets were publicly read in their syna- 
gogues every Sabbath day, Acts xiii. 14, 15, 27 ; 
Luke iv. 17-20 ; which was an excellent method 
of securing their purity, as well as of enforcing 
the observation of the law. The Chaldee para- 
phrases, and the translation of the Old Testa- 
ment into Greek, which were afterward made, 
were so many additional securities. To these 
facts we may add, that the reverence of the Jews 
for their sacred writings is another guaranty for 
their integrity : so great, indeed, was that rever- 
ence, that, according to the statements of Philo 
and Josephus, [Philo, apud Uuseb. de Prcep. 
Evang. lib. viii. c. 2 ; Josephus contra Apion. lib. 
i. sec. 8,) they would suffer any torments, and 
even death itself, rather than change a single 
point or iota of the Scriptures. A law was also 
enacted by them, which denounced him to be 
guilty of inexpiable sin who should presume to 
make the slightest possible alteration in their 
sacred books. The Jewish doctors, fearing to 
add any thing to the law, passed their own 
notions as traditions or explanations of it ; and 
both Jesus Christ and his apostles accused the 
Jews of entertaining a prejudiced regard for those 
traditions, but they never charged them with falsi- 
fying or corrupting the Scriptures themselves. 

"2. After the birth of Christ. For since that 
event the Old Testament has been held in high 

1 Dr. Eextltit's Remarks on Freethinking, part i., remark 
27. Tol. v. p. 144 of Bp. Randolph's Enchiridion Theologi- 
enm, Svo. Oxford, 1792. 



[PART I. 

esteem both by Jews and Christians. The Jews 
also frequently suffered martyrdom for their 
Scriptures, which they would not have done had 
they suspected them to have been corrupted or 
altered. Besides, the Jews and Christians were a 
mutual guard upon each other, which must have 
rendered any material corruption impossible, if 
it had been attempted ; for if such an attempt 
had been made by the Jeics, they would have 
been detected by the Christians. The accomplish- 
ment of such a design, indeed, would have been 
impracticable, from the moral impossibility of 
the Jews (who were dispersed in every country 
of the then known world) being able to collect 
all the then existing copies, with the intention 
of corrupting or falsifying them. On the other 
hand, if any such attempt had been made by the 
Christians, it would assuredly have been detected 
by the Jews ; nor could any such attempt have 
been made by any other man or body of men 
without exposure both by Jews and Christians. 
To these considerations, it may be added, that 
the admirable agreement of all the ancient para- 
phrases and versions, and the writings of Jose- 
phus, with the Old Testament as it is now extant, 
together with the quotations which are made 
from it in the New Testament, and in the writings 
of all ages to the present time, forbid us to 
indulge any suspicion of any material corruption 
in the books of the Old Testament ; and give us 
every possible evidence of which a subject of this 
kind is capable, that these books are now in our 
hands genuine and unadulterated. 

"3. Lastly, the agreement of all the manuscripts 
of the Old Testament (amounting to nearly 
eleven hundred and fifty) which are known to 
be extant, is a clear proof of its uncorrupted 
preservation. These manuscripts, indeed, are 
not all entire : some contain one part, and some 
another. But it is absolutely impossible that 
every manuscript, whether in the original Hebrew, 
or in any ancient version or paraphrase, should 
or could be designedly altered or falsified in the 
same passages without detection either by Jews 
or Christians. The manuscripts now extant are, 
confessedly, liable to errors and mistakes from 
the carelessness, negligence, or inaccuracy of 
copyists ; but they are not all uniformly incorrect 
throughout, nor in the same words or passages ; 
but what is incorrect in one place is correct in 
another. Although the various readings which 
have been discovered by learned men who have 
applied themselves to the collection of every 
known manuscript of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
amount to many thousands, yet these differences 
are of so little real moment, that their laborious 
collations afford us scarcely any opportunities 
of correcting the sacred text in important 



CH. XIII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



81 



passages. So far, however, are these extensive 
and profound researches from being either trivial 
or nugatory, that we have, in fact, derived from 
them the greatest advantage which could have 
been wished for by any real friend of revealed 
religion; namely, the certain knowledge of the 
agreement of the copies of the ancient Scrip- 
tures now extant in their original language with 
each other, and with our Bibles." — Bishop Tom- 
line's Elements of Christ. Theol., vol. i. p. 31. 

" Equally satisfactory is the evidence for the 
integrity and uncorruptness of the New Testa- 
ment in any thing material. The testimonies 
adduced in the preceding section in behalf of 
the genuineness and authenticity of the New 
Testament, are, in a great measure, applicable 
to show that it has been transmitted to us entire 
and uncorrupted. But, to be more particular, we 
remark that the uncorrupted preservation of the 
books of the New Testament is manifest, 

"1. From their contents; for, so early as the 
first two centuries of the Christian era, we find 
the very same facts and the very same doctrines 
universally received by Christians, which we of 
the present day believe on the credit of the New 
Testament. 

"2. Because a universal corruption of those 
writings was impossible, nor can the least vestige of 
such a corruption be found in history. They could 
not be corrupted during the life of their authors; 
and before their death, copies were dispersed 
among the different communities of Christians who 
were scattered throughout the then known world. 
Within twenty years after the ascension, churches 
were formed in the principal cities of the Roman 
empire ; and in all these churches the books of the 
New Testament, especially the four Gospels, were 
read as a part of their public worship, just as 
the writings of Moses and the prophets were 
read in the Jewish synagogues. 1 Nor would the 
use of them be confined to public worship ; for 
these books were not, like the Sybilline oracles, 
locked up from the perusal of the public, but 
were exposed to public investigation. When the 
books of the New Testament were first published 
to the world, the Christians would naturally 
entertain tho highest esteem and reverence for 
writings that delivered an authentic and inspired 
history of tho life and doctrines of Jesus Christ, 
and would bo desirous of possessing such an in- 
valuable treasure. Hence, as we learn from 
unquestionable authority, copies were multiplied 
and disseminated as rapidly as the boundaries of 

1 Dr. Lardneu, has collected numerous Instances in tho 

econd part of Ills Credibility of the Gospel History; refer- 

i i which maybe Been in the general Indez to bis 

workn. article Scriptures. Bee particularly tin- testimonies 

of Justin Martyr, Tertulllan, Origen, and Augustin. 





the Church increased; and translations were 
made into as many languages as were spoken by 
its professors, some of which remain to this day : 
so that it would very soon be rendered absolutely 
impossible to corrupt these books in any one im- 
portant word or phrase. Now it is not to be 
supposed (without violating all probability) that 
all Christians should agree in a design of chang- 
ing or corrupting the original books ; and if some 
only should make the attempt, the uncorrupted 
copies would still remain to detect them. And 
supposing there was some error in one transla- 
tion or copy, or something changed, added, or 
taken away, yet there were many other copies 
and other translations, by the help of which the 
neglect or fraud might be or would be corrected. 
"Further, as these books could not be cor- 
rupted during the life of their respective authors, 
and while a great number of witnesses were alive 
to attest the facts which they record, so neither 
could any material alteration take place after 
their decease, without being detected while the 
original manuscripts were preserved in the 
Churches. The Christians who were instructed 
by the apostles or by their immediate successors, 
travelled into all parts of the world, carrying 
with them copies of their writings, from which 
other copies were multiplied and preserved. 
Now, as we have already seen, we have an 
unbroken series of testimonies for the genuine- 
ness and authenticity of the New Testament. 
which can be traced backward from the fourth 
century of the Christian era to the very time of 
the apostles ; and these very testimonies are 
equally applicable to prove its uncorrupted pre- 
servation. Moreover, harmonies of the four 
Gospels were anciently constructed : commenta- 
ries were written upon them, as well as upon the 
other books of the New Testament: (many of 
which are still extant:) manuscripts were col- 
lated, and editions of the New Testament were 
put forth. These sacred records being univer- 
sally regarded as the supreme standard of truth, 
were received by every class of Christians with 
peculiar respect, as being Divine compositions, 
and possessing an authority belonging to no 
other books. Whatever controversies, therefore, 
arose among different sects, (aud the Church vva^ 
very early rent with fierce contentions on doc- 
trinal points,) tho Scriptures of tho Ne*w Testa- 
ment were received and appealed to by every one 
of them, as being conelusive in all matters of 
controversy: consequently, it was morally im- 
possible that any man or body o[' men should 
corrupt or falsify them in any fundamental 
article — should foist into them a single expression 

to favor their peOUliar tenets, or erase a single 
sentence. Without being detected hy thousands. 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



"If any material alteration had been attempted 
by the orthodox, it would have been detected by 
the heretics ; and on the other hand, if a heretic 
had inserted, altered, or falsified any thing, he 
would have been exposed by the orthodox, or by 
other heretics. It is well known that a division 
commenced in the fourth century between the 
eastern and western Churches, which, about the 
middle of the ninth century, became irreconcila- 
ble, and subsists to the present day. Now, it 
would have been impossible to alter all the copies 
in the eastern empire ; and if it had been possi- 
ble in the east, the copies in the west would have 
detected the alteration. But, in fact, both the 
eastern and western copies agree, which could 
not be expected if either of them was altered or 
falsified. The uncorrupted preservation of the 
New Testament is further evident, 

"3. From the agreement of all the manuscripts. 
The manuscripts of the New Testament, which 
are extant, are far more numerous than those 
of any single classic author whomsoever: up- 
wards of three hundred and fifty were collected 
by Griesbach, for his celebrated critical edition. 
These manuscripts, it is true, are not all entire : 
most of them contain only the Gospels ; others, 
the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Epis- 
tles ; and a few contain the Apocalypse or Reve- 
lation of John. But they were all written in 
very different and distant parts of the world: 
several of them are upwards of twelve hundred 
years old, and give us the books of the New 
Testament, in all essential points, perfectly ac- 
cordant with each other, as any person may 
readily ascertain by examining the critical edi- 
tions published by Mill, Kuster, Bengel, "Wet- 
stein, and Griesbach. The thirty thousand various 
readings which are said to be found in the man- 
uscripts collated by Dr. Mill, and the hundred 
and fifty thousand which Griesbach's edition is 
said to contain, in no degree whatever affect the 
general credit and integrity of the text. In fact, 
the more copies are multiplied, and the more 
numerous the transcripts and translations from 
the original, the more likely is it that the genuine 
text and the true original reading will be investi- 
gated and ascertained. The most correct and 
accurate ancient classics now extant are those 
of which we have the greatest number of manu- 
scripts ; and the most depraved, mutilated, and 
inaccurate editions of the old writers are those 
of which we have the fewest manuscripts, and 
perhaps only a single manuscript extant. Such 
are Athenaeus, Clemens Romanus, Hesychius, 
and Photius. But of this formidable mass of 
various readings which have been collected by 
the diligence of collators, not one tenth — nay, 
not one hundredth part — either makes or can 



make any perceptible, or at least any material 
alteration in the sense in any modern version. 
They consist almost wholly of palpable errors in 
transcription, grammatical and verbal differ- 
ences, such as the insertion or omission of an 
article, the substitution of a word for its equiva- 
lent, and the transposition of a word or two in 
a sentence. Even the few that do change the 
sense, affect it only in passages relating to un- 
important, historical, and geographical circum- 
stances, or other collateral matters; and the 
still smaller number that make any alteration in 
things of consequence, do not on that account 
place us in any absolute uncertainty. For, 
either the true reading may be discovered by 
collating the other manuscripts, versions, and 
quotations found in the works of the ancients ; 
or, should these fail to give us the requisite in- 
formation, we are enabled to explain the doc- 
trine in question from other undisputed passages 
of holy writ. 

"4. The last testimony to be adduced for the 
integrity and uncorruptness of the New Testa- 
ment, is furnished by the agreement of the ancient 
versions and quotations from it, which are made in 
the writings of the Christians of the first three cen- 
turies, and in those of the succeeding fathers of the 
Church. 

"The testimony of versions, and the evidence 
of the ecclesiastical fathers, have already been 
noticed as a proof of the genuineness and au- 
thenticity of the New Testament. The quota- 
tions from the New Testament in the writings 
of the fathers are so numerous that (as it has 
frequently been observed) the whole body of the 
Gospels and Epistles might be compiled from the 
various passages dispersed in their commentaries 
and other writings. And though these citations 
were, in many instances, made from memory, 
yet, being always made with due attention to the 
sense and meaning, and most commonly with a 
regard to the words as well as to the order of the 
words, they correspond with the original records 
from which they were extracted : an irrefragable 
argument, this, of the purity and integrity with 
which the New Testament has been preserved." — 
Horne's Introduction to the Critical Study and 
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. i., chap. 2, 
sect. 3. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE 
SACRED WRITERS. 

The proofs of the existence and actions of 
Moses and Christ, the founders of the Jewish 



CH. XIV.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 



83 



and Christian religions, having been adduced, 
-with those of the antiquity and uncorrupted pre- 
servation of the records which profess to contain 
the facts of their history, and the doctrines they 
taught, the only question to be determined be- 
fore we examine those miracles and prophecies 
on which the claim of the Divine authority of 
their mission rests, is, whether these records 
faithfully record the transactions of which they 
give us information, and on which the Divinity 
of both systems, the Jewish and the Christian, 
is built. To deny this because we object to the 
doctrines taught, is equally illogical and per- 
verse, as it is assuming the doctrine to be false 
before we have considered all the evidence which 
may be adduced in its favor : to deny it because 
we have already determined to reject the mira- 
cles, is equally absurd and impious. It has 
already been proved that miracles are possible ; 
and whether the transactions related as such in 
the Scriptures be really miraculous or not, is a 
subsequent inquiry to that which respects the 
faithful recording of them. If the evidence of 
this is insufficient, the examination of the mira- 
cles is unnecessary : if it is strong and convinc- 
ing, that examination is a subject of very serious 
import. 

We might safely rest the faithfulness of the 
scriptural record upon the argument of Leslie, 
before adduced; but, from the superabundance 
of evidence which the case furnishes, some am- 
plifications may be added, which we shall con- 
fine principally to the authors of the New Testa- 
ment. 

There are four circumstances which never fail 
to give credibility to a witness, whether he de- 
pose to any thing orally or in writing : — 

1. That he is a person of virtuous and sober 
character. 

2. That he was in circumstances certainly to 
know the truth of what he relates. 

3. That he has no interest in making good the 
story. 

4. That his account is circumstantial. 

In the highest degree these guarantees of 
faithful and exact testimony meet in the evangel- 
ists and apostles. 

That they were persons of strict and exemplary 
virtue must by all candid persons be acknow- 
ledged ; so much so that nothing to the contrary 
was ever urged against the integrity of their con- 
duct by the most malicious enemies of Christi- 
anity. Avarice and interest could not sway 
them, for they voluntarily abandoned all their 
temporal connections, and embarked in a cause 
which the world regarded, to the last degree, as 
wretched and deplorable. Of their sincerity 
they gave the utmost proof in the opennoss of 



their testimony, never affecting reserve, or shun- 
ning inquiry. They delivered their testimony 
before kings and princes, priests and magis- 
trates, in Jerusalem and Judea, where their 
Master lived and died, and in the most populous, 
inquisitive, and learned parts of the world, sub- 
mitting its evidences to a fair and impartial 
examination. 

" Their minds were so penetrated with a con- 
viction of the truth of the gospel, that they 
esteemed it their distinguished honor and privi- 
lege to seal their attestation to it by their suffer- 
ings, and blessed God that they were accounted 
worthy to suffer reproach and shame for their 
profession. Passing through honor and dishonor, 
through evil report and good report, as deceivers 
and yet true. Never dejected, never intimidated 
by any sorrows and sufferings they supported ; 
but when stoned, imprisoned, and persecuted in 
one city, flying to another, and there preaching 
the gospel with intrepid boldness and Heaven- 
inspired zeal. Patient in tribulation, fervent in 
spirit, rejoicing under persecution, calm and 
composed under calumny and reproach, praying 
for their enemies, when in dungeons cheering 
the silent hours of night with hymns of praise to 
God. Meeting death itself, in the most dreadful 
forms with which persecuting rage could dress 
it, with a serenity and exultation the Stoic phi- 
losophy never knew. In all these public scenes 
showing to the world a heart infinitely above 
what men vulgarly style great and happy, infi- 
nitely remote from ambition,, the lust of gold, 
and a passion for popular applause; working 
with their own hands to raise a scanty subsist- 
ence for themselves, that they might not be 
burdensome to the societies they had formed ; 
holding up to all with whom they conversed, in 
the bright faithful mirror of their own behavior, 
the amiableness and excellency of the religion 
they taught ; and in every scene and circum- 
stance of life distinguished for their devotion to 
God, their unconquered love for mankind, their 
sacred regard for truth, their self-government, 
moderation, humanity, sincerity, and every Di- 
vine, social, and moral virtue that can adorn and 
exalt a character. Nor are there any features 
of enthusiasm in the writings they have left us. 
We meet with no frantic fervors indulged, no 
monkish abstraction from the world recom- 
mended, no maceration of the body counte- 
nanced, no unnatural institutions established, no 
vain flights of fancy cherished, no absurd and 
irrational doctrines taught, no disobedience to 
any forms of human government encouraged, but 
all civil establishments and social connections 
Buffered to remain in the saint state they Were 
before Christianity. So far were the 0f» 



84 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



from being e?ithusiasts, and instigated by a wild 
undiscerning religious phrensy to rush into the 
jaws of death when they might have honorably 
and lawfully escaped it. that we find them, when 
they could, without wounding their consciences, 
legally extricate themselves from persecution 
and death, pleading their privileges as Roman 
citizens, and appealing to Caesar's supreme juris- 
diction." — Harwood's Introduction to the New 
Testament. 

As it was contrary to their character to at- 
tempt to deceive others, so they could not be 
deceived themselves. They could not mistake in 
the case of feeding of the five thousand, and the 
sudden healing of lepers and lame and blind 
persons. They could not but know whether he 
with whom they conversed for forty days was 
the same Jesus as he with whom they had daily 
and familiar intercourse long before his cruci- 
fixion. They could not mistake as to his ascen- 
sion into heaven; as to the fact whether they 
themselves were suddenly endowed with the 
power of speaking in languages which they had 
never acquired ; and whether they were able to 
work miracles, and to impart the same power to 
others. 

They were not only disinterested in their testi- 
mony, but their interests were on the side of 
concealment. One of the evangelists, Matthew, 
occupied a lucrative situation when called by 
Jesus, and was evidently an opulent man: the 
fishermen of Galilee were at least in circum- 
stances of comfort, and never had any worldly 
inducements held out to them by their Master : 
Nicodemus was a ruler among the Jews : Joseph, 
of Arimathea, " a rich man ;" and St. Paul, both 
from his education, connections, and talents, had 
encouraging prospects in life; hut of himself, 
and of his fellow-laborers, he speaks, and de- 
scribes all the earthly rewards they obtained for 
testifying both to Jews and Greeks that Jesus 
was the Christ — "Even unto this present hour we 
both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are 
buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place: we 
are made as the filth of the world, and are the off- 
scouring of all things unto this day." Finally, 
they sealed their testimony in many instances 
with their blood, a circumstance of which they 
had been forewarned by their Master, and in the 
daily expectation of which they lived. From 
this the conclusion of Dr. Paley is irresistible, 
"These men could not be deceivers. By only 
not bearing testimony they might have avoided 
all their sufferings, and have lived quietly. 
"Would men in such circumstances pretend to 
have seen what they never saw ; assert facts of 
which they had no knowledge ; go about lying 
to teach virtue ; and though not only convinced 



[PART I. 

of Christ's being an impostor, but having seen 
the success of his imposture in his crucifixion, 
yet persist in carrying it on, and so persist as to 
bring upon themselves, for nothing and with a 
full knowledge of the consequence, enmity and 
hatred, danger and death ?" 

To complete the character of their testimony, 
it is in the highest degree circumstantial. We 
never find that forged or false accounts of things 
abound in particularities ; and where many par- 
ticulars are related of time, place, persons, etc., 
there is always a strong presumption of truth, 
and on the contrary. Here the evidence is more 
than presumptive. The history of the evangel- 
ists and of the Acts of the Apostles is so full of 
reference to persons then living, and often to 
persons of consequence, to places in which mira- 
cles and other transactions took place publicly 
and not in secret; and the application of all 
these facts by the first propagators of the Chris- 
tian religion to give credit to its Divine authority 
was so frequent and explicit, and often so re- 
proving to their opposers, that if they had not 
been true they must have been contradicted; and 
if contradicted on good evidence, the authors 
must have been overwhelmed with confusion. 
This argument is rendered the stronger when it 
is considered that "these things were not done 
in a corner," nor was the age dark and illiterate 
and prone to admit fables. The Augustan age 
was the most learned the world ever saw. The 
love of arts, sciences, and literature, was the 
universal passion in almost every part of the 
Roman empire, where Christianity was first 
taught in its doctrines and proclaimed in its 
facts; and in this inquisitive and discerning era, 
it rose, flourished, and established itself, with 
much resistance to its doctrines, but without being 
once questioned as to the truth of its historical 
facts. 

Yet how easily might they have been disproved 
had they been false — that Herod the Great was 
not the sovereign of Judea when our Lord was 
born — that wise men from the east did not come 
to be informed of the place of his birth — and 
that Herod did not convene the sanhedrim to 
inquire where their expected Messiah was to be 
born — that the infants in Bethlehem were not 
massacred — that in the time of Augustus all 
Judea was not enrolled by an imperial edict — 
that Simeon did not take the infant in his arms 
and proclaim him to be the expected salvation 
of Israel, which is stated to have been done 
publicly in the temple before all the people — 
that the numerous persons, many of whose names 
are mentioned, and some the relatives of rulers 
and centurions, were not miraculously healed 
nor raised from the dead — that the resurrection 



CH. XV.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



85 



of Lazarus, stated to have been done publicly 
near to Jerusalem, and himself a respectable 
person, well known, did not occur — that the 
circumstances of the trial, condemnation, and 
crucifixion of Christ, did not take place, as 
stated by his disciples — in particular, that Pilate 
did not wash his hands before them and give his 
testimony to the character of our Lord — that 
there was no preternatural darkness from twelve 
to three in the afternoon on the day of the cru- 
cifixion — and that there was no earthquake — 
facts which, if they did not occur, could have 
been contradicted by thousands — finally, that 
these well-known unlettered men, the apostles, 
were not heard to speak with tongues by many 
who were present in the assembly in which this 
was said to take place. But we might select 
almost all the circumstances out of the four 
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and show 
that for the most part they were capable of 
being contradicted at the time when they were 
first published, and that the immense number of 
circumstances mentioned would in aftertimes 
have furnished acute investigators of the history 
with the means of detecting its falsehood had it 
not been indubitable, either by comparing the 
different relations with each other, or with some 
well-authenticated facts of accredited collateral 
history. On the contrary, the small variations 
in the story of the evangelists are confirmations 
of their testimony, being in proof that there was 
no concert among them to impose upon the world, 
and they do not affect in the least the facts of 
the history itself; while, as far as collateral or 
immediately subsequent history has given its 
evidence, we have already seen that it is con- 
firmatory of the exactness and accuracy of the 
sacred penmen. 

For all these reasons, the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments are to be taken as a 
faithful and uncorrupted record of the transac- 
tions they exhibit ; and nothing now appears to 
be necessary but that this record be examined 
in order to determine its claims to be admitted 
as the deposit of the standing revelations of the 
will of God to mankind. The evidence of the 
genuineness and authenticity of the books of 
which it is composed, at least such of them as is 
necessary to the argument, is full and complete ; 
and if certain of the facts which they detail are 
proved to be really miraculous, and the prophc- 
cios they record are in the proper sense predict' 
ive, then, according to the principles before 
established, tho conclusion must bo that the 
DOCTEINES which tiikv attiist auk Divim:. 

This shall In' tin- next, subject examined— minor 
objections being postponed to be answered in a 
subi equent chapter, 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE miracles of scripture. 

It has been already proved that miracles are 
possible ; that they are appropriate, necessary, 
and satisfactory evidences of a revelation from 
God ; and that, like other facts, they are capa- 
ble of being authenticated by credible testimony. 
These points having been established, the main 
questions before us are, whether the facts alleged 
as miraculous in the Old and New Testaments 
have a sufficient claim to that character, and 
whether they were wrought in confirmation of 
the doctrine and mission of the founders of the 
Jewish and Christian religions. 

That definition of a true miracle which we have 
adopted, may here be conveniently repeated : — 

A miracle is an effect or event contrary to the 
established constitution or course of things, or a 
sensible suspension or controlment of, or deviation 
from, the known laws of nature, wrought either by 
the immediate act, or by the concurrence, or by the 
permission of God, for the proof or evidence of 
some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the 
authority of some particular person. 

The force of the argument from miracles lies 
in this — that as such works are manifestly above 
human power, and as no created being can effect 
them, unless empowered by the Author of nature, 
when they are wrought for such an end as that 
mentioned in the definition, they are to be con- 
sidered as authentications of a Divine mission 
by a special and sensible interposition of God 
himself. 

To adduce all the extraordinary works wrought 
by Moses and by Christ would be unnecessary. 
In those we select for examination, the miracu- 
lous character will sufficiently appear to bring 
them within our definition ; and it will be recol- 
lected that it has been already established that 
the books which contain the account of these 
facts must have been written by their reputed 
authors, and that had not the facts themselves 
occurred as there related, it is impossible that 
the people of the age in which the accounts of 
them were published could have been brought to 
believe them. On the basis, then, of the argu- 
ments already adduced to prove these great 
points, it is concluded that we have in the Scrip- 
tures a truo relation of the faots themselves. 
Nothing, therefore, remains but to establish their 
el aims as miracles. 

Out of tho numerous miracles wrought by the 
agency of Moses, we Beleot, in addition to those 
before mentioned in chapter i\.. the p/at/uc of 

DARKNESS. Two eireumstanees are to be noted 

iii the relation given oi' this event. Exodus x. 



86 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART 



It continued three days, and it afflicted the. 
Egyptians only, for " all the children of Israel had 
light in their dwellings.'''' The fact here mentioned 
was of the most public kind ; and had it not 
taken place, every Egyptian and every Israelite 
could have contradicted the account. The pheno- 
menon was not produced by an eclipse of the 
sun, for no eclipse Of that luminary can endure 
so long. Some of the Roman writers mention a 
darkness by day so great that persons were un- 
able to know each other ; but we have no histori- 
cal account of any other darkness so long con- 
tinued as this, and so intense that the Egyptians 
" rose not up from their places for three days." 
But if any such circumstance had again occurred, 
and a natural cause could have been assigned 
for it, yet even then the miraculous character of 
this event would remain unshaken ; for to what 
but to a supernatural cause could the distinction 
made between the Israelites and the Egyptians 
be attributed, when they inhabited a portion of 
the same country, and when their neighborhoods 
were immediately adjoining? Here, then, are 
the characters of a true miracle. The established 
course of natural causes and effects is interrupted 
by an operation upon that mighty element, the 
atmosphere. That it was not a chance irregu- 
larity in nature, is made apparent from the effect 
following the volition of a man acting in the 
name of the Lord of nature, and from its being 
restrained by that to a certain part of the same 
country — il 3Ioses stretched out his hand," and the 
darkness prevailed everywhere but in the dwell- 
ings of his own people. The fact has been 
established by former arguments ; and the fact 
being allowed, the miracle of necessity follows. 

The destruction of the first-born of the 
Egyptians may be next considered. Here, too, 
are several circumstances to be carefully noted. 
This judgment was threatened in the presence 
of Pharaoh, before any of the other plagues were 
brought upon him and his people. The Israel- 
ites also were forewarned of it. They were 
directed to slay a lamb, sprinkle the blood upon 
their door-posts, and prepare for their departure 
that same night. The stroke was inflicted upon 
the first-born of the Egyptians only, and not 
upon any other part of the family — it occurred 
in the same hour — the first-born of the Israelites 
escaped without exception — and the festival of 
"the passover" was from that night instituted 
in remembrance of the event. Such a festival 
could not in the nature of the thing be established 
in any subsequent age, in commemoration of an 
event which never occurred ; and if instituted at 
the time, the event must have taken place, for 
by no means could this large body of men have 
been persuaded that their first-born had been 



saved, and those of the Egyptians destroyed, if 
the facts had not been before their eyes. The 
history, therefore, being established, the miracle 
follows; for the order of nature is sufficiently 
known to warrant the conclusion, that if a pesti- 
lence were to be assumed as the agent of this 
calamity, an epidemic disease, however rapid and 
destructive, comes not upon the threat of a 
mortal, and makes no such selection as the 
first-born of every family. 

The miracle of dividing the waters of the Red 
Sea has already been mentioned, but merits 
more particular consideration. In this event we 
observe, as in the others, circumstances which ex- 
clude all possibility of mistake or collusion. The 
subject of the miracle is the sea: the witnesses 
of it the host of Israel, who passed through on 
foot, and the Egyptian nation, who lost their 
king and his whole army. The miraculous 
characters of the event are : the waters are 
divided, and stand up on each side: the instru- 
ment is a strong east wind, which begins its 
operation upon the waters at the stretching out 
of the hand of Moses, and ceases at the same 
signal, and that at the precise moment when the 
return of the waters would be most fatal to the 
Egyptian pursuing army. 

It has, indeed, been asked whether there were 
not some ledges of rocks where the water was 
shallow, so that an army, at particular times, 
might pass over ; and whether the Etesian winds, 
which blow strongly all summer from the north- 
west, might not blow so violently against the sea 
as to keep it back "on a heap." But if there 
were any force in these questions, it is plain that 
such suppositions would leave the destruction of 
the Egyptians unaccounted for. To show that 
there is no weight in them at all, let the place 
where the passage of the Red Sea was effected 
be first noted. Some fix it near Suez, at the head 
of the gulf ; but if there were satisfactory evi- 
dence of this, it ought also to be taken into the 
account that formerly the gulf extended at least 
twenty-five miles north of Suez, the place where 
it terminates at present. [Lord Valentia's Travels, 
vol. iii. p. 344.) But the names of places, as 
well as tradition, fix the passage about ten hours' 
journey lower down, at Clysma, or the valley of 
Bedea. The name given by Moses to the place 
where the Israelites encamped before the sea was 
divided, was Pihahiroth, which signifies "the 
mouth of the ridge," or, of that chain of moun- 
tains which line the western coast of the Red 
Sea ; and as there is but one mouth of that chain 
through which an immense multitude of men, 
women, and children, could possibly pass when 
flying before their enemies, there can be no 
doubt whatever respecting the situation of Piha- 



CH. XV.] 



VIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



87 



hiroth; and the modern names of conspicuous 
places in its neighborhood prove that those by 
whom such names were given believed that this 
was the place at which the Israelites passed the 
sea in safety, and where Pharaoh was drowned. 
Thus, we have close by Pihahiroth, on the west- 
ern side of the gulf, a mountain called Attaka, 
which signifies deliverance. On the eastern 
coast opposite is a headland called Ras Musa, or 
" the Cape of Moses ;" somewhat lower, Harnam 
Faraun, "Pharaoh's Springs;" while at these 
places the general name of the gulf itself is 
Bahr-al-Kolsum, "the Bay of Submersion," in 
which there is a whirlpool called Birket Faraun, 
"the Pool of Pharaoh." This, then, was the 
passage of the Israelites ; and the depth of the 
sea here is stated by Bruce, who may be con- 
sulted as to these localities, at about fourteen 
fathoms, and the breadth at between three and 
four leagues. But there is no "ledge of rocks;" 
and as to the "Etesian wind," the same traveller 
observes, " If the Etesian wind blowing from the 
north-west in summer could keep the sea as a 
wall, on the right, of fifty feet high, still the 
difficulty would remain of building the wall to the 
left, or to the north. If the Etesian winds had 
done this once, they must have repeated it many 
a time before or since from the same causes." 
The wind which actually did blow, according to 
the history, either as an instrument of dividing 
the waters, or, which is more probable, as the 
instrument of drying the ground after the waters 
were divided by the immediate energy of the 
Divine power, was not a north wind, but an "east 
wind;" and, as Dr. Hales observes, "seems to be 
introduced by way of anticipation, to exclude 
the natural agency which might be afterwards 
resorted to for solving the miracle ; for it is 
remarkable that the monsoon in the Red Sea 
blows the summer half of the year from the 
north, and the winter half from the south, 
neither of which could produce the miracle in 
question." 

The miraculous character of this event is, 
therefore, most strongly marked. An expanso 
of water, and that water a sea, of from nine to 
twelve miles broad, known to be exceedingly 
subject to agitations, is divided, and a wall of 
water is formed on each hand, affording a pass- 
age on dry land for the Israelites. The pheno- 
menon occurs, too, just as the Egyptian host are 
on the point of overtaking the fugitives, and 
Oeafies at the momont when the latter reach the 
opposite shore in safety, and when their enemies 
are in the midst of the passage, in tho only 
position in which the closing of tho wall of 
Waters Oil each side could insure tho entire de- 
struction of BO large a force! 



The falling of the manna in the wilderness for 
forty years, is another unquestionable miracle, 
and one in which there could be neither mistake 
on the part of those who were sustained by it, 
nor fraud on the part of Moses. That this event 
was not produced by the ordinary course of 
nature, is rendered certain by the fact that the 
same wilderness has been travelled by individu- 
als, and by large bodies of men, from the earliest 
ages to the present, but no such supply of food 
was ever met with, except on this occasion ; and 
its miraculous character is further marked by the 
following circumstances: 1. That it fell but six 
days in the week. 2. That it fell in such pro- 
digious quantities as sustained three millions of 
souls. 3. That there fell a double quantity every 
Friday, to serve the Israelites for the next day, 
which was their Sabbath. 4. That what was 
gathered on the first five days of the week stank 
and bred worms if kept above one day; but 
that which was gathered on Friday kept sweet 
for two days. And, 5. That it continued falling 
while the Israelites remained in the wilderness, 
but ceased as soon as they came out of it, and 
got corn to eat in the land of Canaan. ( Universal 
History, 1. 1, c. 7.) Let these very extraordinary 
particulars be considered, and they at once con- 
firm the fact, while they unequivocally establish 
the miracle. No people could be deceived in 
these circumstances : no person could persuade 
them of their truth, if they had not occurred ; 
and the whole was so clearly out of the regular 
course of nature, as to mark unequivocally the 
interposition of God. To the majority of the 
numerous miracles recorded in the Old Testa- 
ment the same remarks apply, and upon them 
the same miraculous characters are as indubitably 
impressed. If we proceed to those of Christ, 
the evidence becomes, if possible, more indubi- 
table. They were clearly above the power of 
either human agency or natural causes — they 
were public : they were such as could not admit 
of collusion or deception : they were performed 
under such circumstances as rendered it impos- 
sible for the witnesses and reporters of them to 
mistake : they were often done in the presence 
of malignant, scrutinizing, and intelligent ene- 
mies, the Jewish rulers, who acknowledged the 
facts, but attributed them to an evil, super- 
natural agency; and there is no interruption in 
tho testimony, from the age in which they were 
wrought to this day. It would bo trifling with 
tho reader to examine instances so well known 
in their circumstances ; for tho slightest recollec- 
tion of the feeding of tho multitudes in the 
desert: the healing of tho paralytic, who. because 
of the multitude, was lot down from the house- 
top: tho instant cure ol' the Withered hand in 



88 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



the synagogue, near Jerusalem, where the Phari- 
sees were "watching our Lord whether he would 
heal on the Sabbath day:" the raising from the 
dead of the daughter of Jairus, the widow's son, 
and Lazarus ; and many other instances of 
miraculous power, — will be sufficient to convince 
any ingenuous mind that all the characters of 
real and adequately attested miracles meet hi 
them. That great miracle, the resurrection of 
our Lord himself from the dead, so often appealed 
to by the first teachers of his religion, may, 
however, be here properly adduced, with its con- 
vincing and irrefragable circumstances, as com- 
pleting this branch of the external evidence. 

That it is a miracle in its highest sense for a 
person actually dead to raise himself again to 
life, cannot be doubted ; and when wrought, as 
the raising of Christ was, in attestation of a 
Divine commission, it is evidence of the most 
irrefragable kind. So it has been regarded by 
unbelievers, who have bent all their force against 
it ; and so it was regarded by Divine Providence, 
who rendered its proofs ample and indubitable in 
proportion to its importance. Let us, then, 
examine the circumstances as recorded in the 
history. 

In the first place, the reality of Christ s death is 
circumstantially and fully stated, though, if no 
circumstantial evidence had been adduced, it is 
not to be supposed that they, who had sought 
his death with so much eagerness, would be in- 
attentive to the full execution of the sentence for 
which they had clamored. The execution was 
public : he was crucified with common malefac- 
tors, in the usual place of execution : the soldiers 
brake not his legs, the usual practice when they 
would hasten the death of the malefactor, ob- 
serving that he was dead already. His enemies 
knew that he had predicted his resurrection, and 
would therefore be careful that he should not be 
removed from the cross before death had actually 
taken place; and Pilate refused to deliver the 
body for burial until he had expressly inquired 
of the officer on duty, whether he were already 
dead. Nor was he taken away to an unknown or 
distant tomb. Joseph of Arimathea made no 
secret of the place where he had buried him. It 
was in his own family tomb, and the Pharisees 
knew where to direct the watch which was ap- 
pointed to guard the body against the approach 
of his disciples. The reality of the death of 
Christ is therefore established. 

2. But by both parties, by the Pharisees on 
the one part, and by the disciples on the other, 
it was agreed that the body was missing, and that 
in the state of death it was never more seen ! 
The sepulchre was made sure, the stone at the 
mouth being sealed, and a watch of sixty Roman 



[PART I. 

soldiers appointed to guard it, and yet the body 
was not to be found. Let us see, then, how each 
party accounts for this fact. The disciples affirm 
that two of their company, going early in the 
morning to the sepulchre to embalm the body, 
saw an angel descend and roll away the stone, 
sit upon it, and invite them to see the place where 
their Lord had lain, informing them that he was 
risen, and commanding them to tell the other 
disciples of the fact: that others went to the 
sepulchre, and found not the body, though the 
grave-clothes remained : that, at different times, 
he appeared to them, both separately and when 
assembled : that they conversed with him : that 
he partook of their food : that they touched his 
body : that he continued to make his appearance 
among them for nearly six weeks, and then, after 
many advices, finally led them out as far as 
Bethany, and, in the presence of them all, as- 
cended into the clouds of heaven. This is the 
statement of the disciples. 

The manner in which the Jewish sanhedrim 
accounts for the absence of our Lord's body from 
the sepulchre is, that, the Roman soldiers having 
slept on their posts, the disciples stole away the 
corpse. We know of no other account. Neither 
in their earliest books nor traditions is there any 
other attempt to explain the alleged resurrection 
of Jesus. We are warranted therefore in con- 
cluding that the Pharisees had nothing but this 
to oppose to the positive testimony of the disciples, 
who also added, and published it to the world, 
that the Roman soldiers related to the Pharisees 
"all the things that were done" — the earthquake, 
the appearance of the angel, etc. — but that they 
were bribed to say, "His disciples came by night 
and stole him away, while we slept." 

On the statement of the Pharisees we may 
remark, that though those who were not con- 
vinced by our Lord's former miracles were in a 
state of mind to resist the impression of his 
resurrection, yet, in this attempt to destroy the 
testimony of the apostles, they fell below their 
usual subtlety in circulating a story which carried 
with it its own refutation. This, however, may 
be accounted for, from the hurry and agitation 
of the moment, and the necessity under which 
they were laid to invent something to amuse the 
populace, who were not indisposed to charge 
them with the death of Jesus. Of this it is clear 
that the Pharisees were apprehensive, "fearing 
the people," on this as on former occasions. This 
appears from the manner in which the sanhedrim 
addressed the apostles, Acts v. 28: "Did we not 
straitly command you, that ye should not teach 
in this name ? and, behold, ye have filled Jeru- 
salem with your doctrine, and intend to bring 
this man's blood upon us." The majority of 



CH. XV.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



89 



the people were not enemies of Jesus, though 
the Pharisees were ; and it was a mob of base 
fellows, and strangers, of which Jerusalem was 
full at the passover, who had been excited to 
clamor for his death. The body of the Jewish 
populace heard him gladly: great numbers of 
them had been deeply impressed by the raising 
of Lazarus, in the very neighborhood of Jerusa- 
lem, and had in consequence accompanied him 
with public acclamations, as the Messiah, • into 
Jerusalem. These sentiments of the people of 
Jerusalem toward our Lord were transferred to 
the apostles ; for after Peter and John had healed 
the man at the gate of the temple, and refused 
to obey the council in keeping silent as to Christ, 
when the chief priests had "further threatened 
them, they let them go, finding not how they might 
punish them, because of the people." 

It was in a state of considerable agitation, 
therefore, that this absurd and self-exposed 
rumor was hastily got up, and as hastily pub- 
lished. We may add, also, that it was hastily 
abandoned ; for it is remarkable that it is never 
adverted to by the Pharisees in any of those legal 
processes instituted at Jerusalem against the first 
preachers of Christ as the risen Messiah, within 
a few days after the alleged event itself. First, 
Peter and John are brought before their great 
council ; then the whole body of the apostles 
twice: on all these occasions they affirm the 
fact of the resurrection, before the very men who 
had originated the tale of the stealing away of 
the body, and in none of these instances did the 
chief priests oppose this story to the explicit 
testimony of his disciples having seen, felt, and 
conversed with Jesus after his passion. This 
silence cannot be accounted for but on the sup- 
position that, in the presence of the apostles at 
least, they would not hazard its exposure. If at 
any time the Roman guards could have been 
brought forward effectually to confront the 
apostles, it was when the whole body of the latter 
were in custody, and before the council, where 
indeed the great question at issue between the 
parties was, whether Jesus were risen from the 
dead or not. On the one part, the apostles stand 
before the rulers affirming the fact, and are 
ready to go into the detail of their testimony : 
the only testimony which could be opposed to 
this is that of the Roman soldiers ; but not one 
of the sixty is brought up, and they do not even 
advert to the rumor which the rulers had pro- 
claimed. On the contrary, one of them, Gamaliel, 
advises the council to take no further proceed- 
ings, but to let the matter go on, for this reason, 
that if it were of men it would come to naught, 
but if of God, they could not overthrow it, and 
would bo found to fight against God himself. 



Now it is plain that if the Pharisees themselves 
believed in the story they had put into the mouths 
of the Roman soldiers, no doctor of the law, like 
Gamaliel, would have given such advice, and 
equally impossible is it that the council should 
unanimously have agreed to it. With honest 
proofs of an imposture in their hands, they could 
never thus have tamely surrendered the public to 
delusion and their own characters to infamy; 
nor, if they had, could they have put their non- 
interference on the ground assumed by Gamaliel. 
The very principle of his decision supposes that 
both sides acknowledged something very extra- 
ordinary which might prove a work of God ; and 
that time would make it manifest. It admitted, 
in point of fact, that Jesus might be risen 
again. The whole council, by adopting Gama- 
liel's decision, admitted this possibility, or how 
could time show the whole work, built entirely 
upon this fact, to be a work of God, or not? 
And thus Gamaliel, without intending it, cer- 
tainly, has afforded evidence in favor of the 
resurrection of our Lord the more powerful from 
its being incidental. 

The absurdity involved in the only testimony 
ever brought against the resurrection of our 
Lord, rendered it indeed impossible to maintain 
the story. That a Roman guard should be found 
off their watch, or asleep, a fault which the 
military law of that people punished with death, 
was most incredible : that, if they were asleep, 
the timid disciples of Christ should dare to make 
the attempt, when the noise of removing the 
stone and bearing away the body might awaken 
them, is very improbable ; and, above all, as it 
has been often put, either the soldiers were awake 
or asleep — if awake, why did they suffer a few 
unarmed peasants and women to take away the 
body? and if asleep, how came they to know 
that the disciples were the persons ? 

Against the resurrection of Christ, we may 
then with confidence say, there is no testimony 
whatever : it stands, like every other fact in the 
evangelic history, entirely uncontradicted from 
the earliest ages to the present ; and though we 
grant that.it does not follow, that, because wo do 
not admit the account given of the absence of 
our Lord's body from the sepulchre by the Jev s, 
we must therefore admit that of the apostles, 
yet the very inability of thoso who first objected 
to the fact of tho resurrection to account for the 
absence of the body, which had been entirety in 
their own power, affords very strong presumptive 
evidence in favor of the statement of the disci- 
ples. Under such oiroumstanoes, the loss of the 
body became itself an extraordinary event. The 
tomb was carefully olosed and sealed bv offioers 
appointed for that purpose, a guard was set. and 



90 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART I. 



yet the body is missing. The story of the Phari- 
sees does not at all account for the fact : it is too 
absurd to be for a moment credited ; and, unless 
the history of the evangelists be admitted, that 
singular fact remains still unaccounted for. 

But in addition to this presumption, let the 
circumstances of credibility in the testimony of 
the disciples be collected, and the evidence be- 
comes indubitable. 

The account given by the disciples was not 
even an improbable one ; for allow the miracles 
wrought by Christ during his life, and the resur- 
rection follows as a natural conclusion ; for before 
that event can be maintained to be in the lowest 
sense improbable, the whole history of his public 
life, in opposition not to the evangelists merely, 
but, as we have seen, to the testimony of Jews 
and heathens themselves, must be proved to be 
a fable. 

The manner in which this testimony is given is 
in its favor. So far from the evangelists having 
written in concert, they give an account of the 
transaction so varied as to make it clear that 
they wrote independently of each -other ; and yet 
so agreeing in the leading facts, and so easily 
capable of reconcilement in those minute circum- 
stances in which some discrepancy at first sight 
appears, that their evidence in every part carries 
with it the air of honesty and truth. 

Their own account sufficiently proves that 
they were incredulous as to the fact when an- 
nounced, and so not disposed to be imposed upon 
by an imagination. This indeed was impossible : 
the appearances of Christ were too numerous, 
and were continued for too long a time, — forty 
days. They could not mistake, and it is as im- 
possible that they should deceive : impossible that 
upward of five hundred persons to whom Christ 
appeared, should have been persuaded by the 
artful few that they had seen and conversed with 
Christ, or to agree, not only without reward, but 
in renunciation of all interests and in hazard of 
all dangers and of death itself, to continue to 
assert a falsehood. 

Nor did a long period elapse before the fact of 
the resurrection was proclaimed ; nor was a distant 
place chosen in which to make the first report of it. 
These would have been suspicious circumstances; 
but, on the contrary, the disciples testify the fact 
from the day of the resurrection itself. One of 
them, in a public speech at the feast of pentecost, 
addressed to a mixed multitude, affirms it ; and 
the same testimony is given by the whole college 
of apostles, before the great council twice : this 
too was done at Jerusalem, the scene of the whole 
transaction, and in the presence of those most 
interested in detecting the falsehood. Their 
evidence was given not only before private but 



public persons, before magistrates and tribunals, 
"before philosophers and rabbies, before court- 
iers, before lawyers, before people expert in 
examining and cross-examining witnesses," and 
yet what Christian ever impeached his accom- 
plices ? or discovered this pretended imposture ? 
or was convicted of prevarication ? or was even 
confronted with others who could contradict him 
as to this or any other matter of fact relative to 
his religion ? To this testimony of the apostles 
was added the seal of miracles, wrought as pub- 
licly, and being as unequivocal in their nature, 
as open to public investigation, and as numerous, 
as those of their Lord himself. The miracle of 
the gift of tongues was in proof of the resurrec- 
tion and ascension of Jesus Christ; and the 
miracles of healing were wrought by the apostles 
in their Master's name, and therefore were the 
proofs both of his resurrection and of their com- 
mission. Indeed, of the want of supernatural 
evidence the Jews, the ancient enemies of Christi- 
anity, never complained. They allowed the 
miracles both of Christ and his apostles ; but by 
ascribing them to Satan, and regarding them as 
diabolical delusions and wonders wrought in 
order to seduce them from the law, their admis- 
sions are at once in proof of the truth of the 
Gospel history, and enable us to account for their 
resistance to an evidence so majestic and over- 
whelming. 1 



CHAPTER XVI. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE PROOF FROM MIRACLES CON- 
SIDERED. 

The first objection to the conclusiveness of the 
argument in favor of the Mosaic and Christian 
systems which is drawn from their miracles, is 
grounded upon facts and doctrines supposed to 
be found in the Scriptures themselves. 

It is stated, that the Scriptures assert miracu- 
lous acts to have been performed in opposition to 
the mission and to the doctrine of those who have 
professed themselves accredited instruments of 
making known revelations of the will of God to 
mankind ; and that the sacred writers frequently 
speak of such events as possible, nay, as certain 
future occurrences, even when they have not 
actually taken place. The question therefore is, 
how miracles should be conclusive proofs of 
truth, when they actually have been, or may be 
wrought, in proof of falsehood. "Shall a miracle 

1 The evidences of our Lord's resurrection are fully ex- 
hibited in "West on the Resurrection, Sherlock's Trial of 
the Witnesses, and Dr. Cook's Illustration of the Evidence 
of Christ's Resurrection. 



CH. XVI.] 



EVIDENCES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



91 



confirm the belief of one, and not confirm the 
belief of more gods than one, if wrought for 
that purpose ?" [Bishop Fleetwood on Miracles.) 
The instances usually adduced are the feats of the 
Egyptian magi in opposition to Moses, and the 
raising of Samuel by the witch of Endor. The 
presumptions that such works are considered 
possible, are drawn from a passage of Moses in 
the book of Deuteronomy : a prediction respect- 
ing false Christs in St. Matthew's Gospel ; and 
the prediction of the man of sin, in the writings 
of St. Paul: all of which caution the reader 
against being seduced from the truth by "signs 
and wonders" performed by false teachers. 

With respect to the miracles, or pretended 
miracles, wrought by the magicians of Pharaoh, 
some preliminary considerations are to be noteft. 

1. That whether the persons called magicians 
were regular priests, or a distinct class of men, 
they were known to be expert in producing 
singular effects and apparent transformations in 
natural objects ; for after Moses had commenced 
his marvellous operations, they were sent for by 
Pharaoh to oppose their power and skill' to his. 

2. That they succeeded, or appeared to succeed, 
in three attempts to imitate the works of Moses, 
and were then controlled, or attempted a work 
beyond their power, and were obliged to acknow- 
ledge themselves vanquished by "the finger of 
God." The rest of the miracles wrought by 
Moses went on without any attempt at imitation. 

3. That these works, of whatever kind they 
might be, were wrought to hold up the idols of 
Egypt as equal in power to Jehovah, the God of 
Moses and the Israelites. This is a consideration 
of importance, and the fact is easily proved. 
If they were mere jugglers, and performed their 
wonders by sleight of hand, they did not wish 
the people to know this, or their influence over 
them could not have been maintained. They 
therefore used "enchantments," incongruous and 
strange ceremonies, rites and offerings, which 
among all superstitious people have been sup- 
posed to have a powerful effect in commanding 
the influence of supernatural beings in their 
favor and subjecting them to their will. We have 
an instance of this use of "enchantments" in the 
case of Balaam, who lived in the same age ; and 
this example goes very far, we think, to settle the 
sense in which the magi used "enchantments ;" for 
though the original word used is different, yet its 
ideal meaning is equally capable of being applied 
to the rites of incantation, and in this sense it is 
confirmed by the whole story. 1 Whatever con- 

1 " They also did in like manner with their enchantments. 
Tho word t^bn^, laluitim, comes from &!"£, lahat, to burn, 
to set on fire; and probably Kignilics such incantations as 



nection therefore may be supposed to exist be- 
tween the "enchantments" used and the works 
performed, or if all connection be denied, this 
species of religious rite was performed, and the 
people understood, as it was intended they should 
understand, that the wonders which the magi 
performed were done under the influence of their 
deities. The object of Pharaoh and the magicians 
was to show that their gods were as powerful as 
the God who had commissioned Moses, and that 
they could protect them from his displeasure, 
though they should refuse at the command of his 
commissioned servant to let his people go. 

But whatever pretence there was of super- 
natural assistance, it is contended, by several 
writers of great and deserved authority, that no 
miracles were wrought at all on these occasions : 
that, by dexterity and previous preparation, ser- 
pents were substituted by the magicians for rods : 
that a coloring matter was infused into a portion 
of water ; and that as frogs, through the previous 
miracle of Moses, everywhere abounded in the 
land of Egypt, a sufficient number might be 
easily procured to cover some given space ; and 
they further argue, that when the miracles of 
Moses became such as to defy the possibility of 
the most distant imitation, at that point the 
simulations of the magi ceased. 

The obvious objection to this is, that "Moses 
describes the works of the magicians in the very 
same language as he does his own, and therefore 
there is reason to conclude that they were equally 
miraculous." To this it is replied, that nothing 
is more common than to speak of professed jug- 
glers as doing what they pretend or appear to do, 
and that this language never misleads. But it is 
also stated, and the observation is of great weight, 
that the word used by Moses is one of great 
latitude — "they did so" — that is, in like manner, 
importing that they attempted some imitation of 
Moses ; because it is used when they failed in 
their attempt — "they did so to briny forth lice; 
but they could not." Further, Mr. Farmer, Dr. 
Hales, and others, contend that the root of the 
word translated "enchantments" fitly expresses 
any "secret artifices or methods of deception, 
whereby false appearances are imposed upon the 
spectators." For a further explanation and de- 
fence of this hypothesis, an extract from Farmer's 

required lustral fires, sacrifices, fumigations, burning of in- 
cense, aromatic and odoriferous drugs, etc.. as the means of 
evoking departed spirits, or assistant demons, by whose 
ministry, it is probable, tho magicians in question wrought 
some of their deceptive miracles; for as the term miracle. 

properly signifies something which exceeds the power of 
nature or art to produce, (see verse 0.) hence there could 
bo no miracle in this case, but those wrought through tho 
power of Qod, by the ministry of Moses ami Aaron." (Dr. 
Adam Clarke in loc.) 



92 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



Dissertation on Miracles is given at the end of 
the chapter. 1 

Much as these observations deserve attention, 
it may be very much doubted whether mere 
manual dexterity and sleight of hand can suffi- 
ciently account for the effects actually produced, 
if only human agents were engaged ; and it does 
not appear impracticable to meet any difficulty 
which may arise out of an admission of super- 
natural evil agency in the imitation of the first 
three wonders performed by Moses. 

It ought however in the first place to be pre- 
viously stated, that the history before us is not 
in fairness to be judged of as an insulated state- 
ment, independent of the principles and doctrines 
of the revelation in which it is found. With that 
revelation it is bound up, and by the light of its 
doctrine it is to be judged. No infidel, who 
would find in Scripture an argument against 
Scripture, has the right to consider any passage 
separately, or to apply to it the rule of his own 
theory on religious subjects, unless he has first, 
by fair and honest argument, disposed of the 
evidences of the Scriptures themselves. He must 
disprove the authenticity of the sacred record, 
and the truth of the facts contained in it, — he 
must rid himself of every proof of the Divine 
mission of Moses, and of the evidence of his 
miracles, before he is entitled to this right ; and 
if he is inadequate to this task, he can only con- 
sider the case as a difficulty, standing on the 
admission of the Scriptures themselves, and to 
be explained, as far as possible, on the principles 
of that general system of religion which the 
Scriptures themselves supply. In this nothing 
more is asked than argumentative fairness. The 
same rule is still more obligatory upon those 
interpreters who profess to believe in the Divine 
authority of the sacred records ; for, by the aid 
of their general principles and unequivocal doc- 
trines, every difficulty which they profess to ex- 
tract from them is surely to be examined in 
order to ascertain its real character. What, 
however, is the real difficulty in the present case, 
supposing it to be allowed that the magicians 
performed works superior to the power of any 
mere human agent, and therefore supernatural ? 
This it is the more necessary to settle, as the 
difficulty supposed to arise out of this admission 
has been exaggerated. 

It seems generally to have been supposed that 
these counter performances were wrought to con- 
tradict the Divine mission of Moses ; and that 
by allowing them to be supernatural, we are 
brought into the difficulty of supposing that God 
may authenticate the mission of his servants by 

i See note A at the end of the chapter. 



miracles, and that miracles may be wrought also 
to contradict this attestation — thus leaving us in 
1 a state of uncertainty. This view is not, how- 
I ever, at all countenanced by the history. No 
intimation is given that the magicians performed 
their wonders to prove that there was no such 
God as Jehovah, or that Moses was not commis- 
sioned by him. For, as they did not deny the 
works of Moses to be really performed, they 
could no more deny that he did them by the 
j power of his God than they would deny that 
I they themselves performed their exploits by the 
; assistance of their gods, — a point which they 
doubtless wished to impress upon Pharaoh and 
I the people, and for which both were prepared by 
: their previous belief in their idols, and in the 
effect of incantations. For to suppose that 
Pharaoh sent for men to play mere juggling 
• tricks, knowing them to be mere jugglers, seems 
I too absurd to be for a moment admitted, except, 
' indeed, as some have assumed, that he thought 
I the works of Moses to be sleight-of-hand decep- 
tions, which he might expose by the imitations 
of his own jugglers. But nothing of this is even 
hinted at in the history ; and at least the second 
work of Moses was such as entirely to preclude 
the idea — the water became blood throughout the 
whole land of Egypt. It was not intended by 
these works of the Egyptian magi to oppose the 
existence of Jehovah, for there was nothing in 
polytheism which required it to be denied that 
every people had their own local divinities, — 
nothing, indeed, which required its votaries to 
disallow the existence of even a Supreme Deity, 
the " Father of gods and men ;" and that Moses 
was commissioned by this Jehovah, " the God of 
the Hebrews," to command Pharaoh to let his 
! people go, was in point of fact acknowledged, 
' rather than denied, by allowing his works, and 
attempting to imitate them. The argument upon 
their own principles was certainly as strong for 
Moses as for the Egyptian priests. If their 
extraordinary works proved them the servants 
of their gods, the works of Moses proved him 
to be the servant of his God. 

Thus in this series of singular transactions 
was there no evidence from counter miracles, even 
should it be allowed that real miracles were 
wrought, to counteract or nullify the mission of 
Moses, or to deny the existence, or even to ques- 
tion any of the attributes, of the true Jehovah. 
All that can be said is, that singular works, 
which were intended to pass for miraculous 
ones, were wrought, not to disprove any thing 
which Moses advanced, but to prove that the 
Egyptian deities had power equal to the God of 
the Jews ; and in which contest their votaries 
ultimately failed, that pretension being abun- 



CH. XVI.] 



EVIDENCES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



93 



dantly refuted by the transcendent nature and 
number of the works of Moses; and by their 
being "plagues" from which the objects of their 
idolatry could not deliver them, and which, 
indeed, as the learned Bryant has shown, were 
intended expressly to humble idolatry itself, and 
put it to open and bitter shame. 

If in this instance we see nothing to contra- 
vene the evidence of miracles as attestations of 
the Divine commission of Moses, so in no other 
case recorded in Scripture. The raising of the 
spirit of Samuel by the witch of Endor is, indeed, 
the only instance of any thing approaching to 
miraculous agency ascribed to an evil spirit, 
unless we add the power exercised by Satan over 
Job, and his bearing our Lord through the air, 
and placing him upon an exceeding high moun- 
tain. But whether these events were, properly 
speaking, miraculous, may be more than doubted ; 
and if they were, neither they nor the raising of 
Samuel profess to give any evidence in opposition 
to the mission of any servant of God, or to the 
doctrines taught by him. On the contrary, so 
far are the Scriptures from affording any ex- 
amples of miracles, either real or simulated, 
wrought in direct opposition to the mission and 
theological doctrine of the inspired messengers 
of God in any age, that in cases where the 
authority of the messenger was fairly brought 
into question, the examples are of a quite differ- 
ent kind. Elijah brought the matter to issue, 
whether Jehovah or Baal were God ; and while 
the priests of Baal heard neither "voice nor 
sound" in return to all their prayers, the God of 
Israel answered his own prophet by fire, and by 
that ratified his servant's commission and his 
own Divinity before all Israel. The devils in 
our Lord's days confessed him to be the Son of 
the most high God. The damsel possessed with 
a spirit of divination at Thyatira, gave testimony 
to the mission of the Apostle Paul and his com- 
panions. We read of no particular acts performed 
by Elymas the sorcerer ; but, whatever he could 
perform, when he attempted to turn away 
Sergius Paulus from the faith, ho was struck 
blind. And thus we find that Scripture does 
nowhere represent miracles to have been actually 
wrought in contradiction of the authority of any 
whom God had commissioned to teach his will to 
mankind. 

But that the Scriptures assume this as possible, 
is argued from Deut. xiii. 1, etc., where tho 
people are commanded not to follow a prophet or 
dreamer of dreams, who would entice them into 
idolatry, though ho should give them "a sign or 
wonder, and tho sign or wonder corao to pass." 
Here, however, it appoars that not a miraclo, 
but a prophecy of some wonderful event is 



spoken of; for this sign or wonder was to come 
to pass. Nor can the prediction be considered 
as more than some shrewd and accidental guess, 
either from himself, or by the assistance of some 
evil supernatural agency, (a subject we shall 
just now consider,) but in fact falling short, 
though in some respects wonderful, of a true 
prediction ; because in the eighteenth chapter 
of this same book the fulfilment of the words of a 
prophet is made the conclusive proof of his Divine 
commission ; nor can we suppose the same writer 
within the distance of a few sentences to con- 
tradict himself. 

In Matthew xxiv. 24, it is predicted that false 
Christs and false prophets shall arise and show 
"great signs and wonders" calculated to deceive 
men, though not "the elect." And in 2 Thess. 
ii. 8 and 9, the coming of the man of sin is said 
to be " after the working of Satan with all power, 
and signs, and lying wonders." The latter predic- 
tion refers unquestionably to, the papacy, and to 
works wrought to lead men from the true inter- 
pretation of the Gospel, though not to annul in 
the least the Divine authority of Christ and his 
apostles : the former supposes works which, as 
being wrought by false Christs, are opposed to 
the commission of our Lord, and is, indeed, the 
only instance in which a direct contest between 
the miracles which attest the authority of a 
Divine messenger, and "great signs and wonders" 
wrought to attest an opposing and contradictory 
authority, is spoken of. What these "signs and 
wonders" may be, it is therefore necessary to 
ascertain. 

In the Thessalonians they are ascribed to the 
" working of Satan ;" and in order to bring the 
general principles of the revelation of the Scrip- 
tures to bear upon these, its more obscure and 
difficult parts, a rule to which we are in fairness 
bound, it must be observed, 

1. That the introduction of sin into the world 
is ascribed to the malice and seductive cunning 
of a powerful evil spirit, the head and leader of 
innumerable others. 2. That when a Redeemer 
was promised to man, that promise, in its very 
first annunciation, indicated a long and arduous 
struggle between him and these evil supernatural 
agents. 3. That it is the fact that a powerful 
contest has been maintained in the world ever 
since between truth and error, idolatry, supersti- 
tion, and will-worship, and tho pure and author- 
ized worship of the truo God. 4. That the 
Scriptures uniformly represent the Redeemer 
and Restorer at the head oi' one party o\' men in 
tho struggle, and Satan at the head of the other; 
each making use of men as their instruments, 
though consistently with fcheir^awroZ free agency. 
5. That Almighty God carries on his purposes to 



94 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



win man back to obedience to him by the exhibi- 
tion of truth, -with its proper evidences: by 
commands, promises, threats, chastisements, and 
final punishments ; and that Satan opposes this 
design by exhibitions of error and false religion, 
gratifying to the corrupt passions and appetites 
of men ; and especially seeks to influence power- 
ful agents among men to seduce others by their 
example, and to destroy the truth by persecution 
and force. 6. That the false religions of the 
heathen, as well as the corruptions of Christi- 
anity, took place under this diabolical influence ; 
and that the idols of the heathen were not only 
the devices of devils, but often devils themselves, 1 
made the objects of the worship of men, either 
for their wickedness or their supposed power to 
hurt. 2 

Now, as the objection which we are considering 
is professedly taken from Scripture, its doctrine 
on this subject must be explained by itself, and 
for this reason the above particulars have been 
introduced; but the inquiry must go farther. 
These evil spirits are in a state of hostility to 
the truth, and oppose it by endeavoring to seduce 
men to erroneous opinions and a corrupt worship. 
All their power may, therefore, be expected to 
be put forth in accomplishment of their designs ; 
but to what does their power extend ? This is 
an important question, and the Scriptures afford 
us no small degree of assistance in deciding it. 

1. They can perform no work of creation; for 
this throughout Scripture is constantly attributed 
to God, and is appealed to by him as the proof 
of his own Divinity in opposition to idols, and to 
all beings whatever: "To whom will ye liken me, 
or shall I be equal, saith the Holy One? Lift up 
your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these 
things." This claim must of necessity cut off 
from every other being the power of creating in 
any degree, that is, of making any thing out of 
nothing; for a being possessing the power to 
create an atom out of nothing, could not want 
the ability of making a world. Nay, creation, 
in its lowest sense, is in this passage denied to 

1 Some of the demons worshipped by heathens had a 
benevolent reputation, and these were, no doubt, suggested 
by the tradition of good angels: others were malignant, 
and were none other than the evil angels, devils, handed 
down by the same tradition. Thus Plutarch says, '•' It has 
been a very ancient opinion, that there are malevolent 
demons, who envy good men, and oppose them in their 
actions/' etc. 

2 The passion of Satan to be worshipped appears strongly 
marked in our Lord's temptation : "All these will I give 
thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." In all ages 
evil and sanguinary beings have been deified. It was so 
in the time of Moses, and remains so to this day in India 
and Africa, where devil-wor6hip is openly professed. In 
Ceylon nothing is more common; and in many parts of 
Africa every village has its devil-house. 



[part I. 

any but God: that is, the forming goodly and 
perfect natural objects, such as the heavens and 
the earth are replenished with, from a pre-exist- 
ent matter, as he formed all things from matter 
unorganized and chaotic. No "sign," therefore, 
no "wonder" which implies creation, is possible 
to finite beings; and whatever power any of 
them may have over matter, it cannot extend to 
any act of creation. 

2. Life and death are out of the power of evil 
spirits. The dominion of these is so exclusively 
claimed by God himself in many passages of 
Scripture which are familiar, that they need not 
be cited: "Unto God the Lord belong the issues 
from death:" "I kill, and I make alive again." No 
"signs or wonders," therefore, which imply 
dominion over these, — the power to produce a 
living being, or to give life to the dead, — are 
within the power of evil spirits: these are 
works of God. 

3. The knowledge of future events, especially 
of those which depend on free or contingent 
causes, is not attainable by evil spirits. This is 
the property of God, who founds upon it the 
proof of his Deity, and therefore excludes it 
from all others: "Show the things that are to come 
hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods." Isa. 
xl. 25, 26; xli. 23. They cannot, therefore, 
utter a prediction in the strict and proper sense: 
though, from their great knowledge of human 
affairs, and their long habits of observation, 
their conjectures may be surprising, and often 
accomplished, and so if uttered by any of their 
servants may have in some cases the appearance 
of prophecies. 

4. They do not know certainly the thoughts 
and characters of men. " That," as St. Augus- 
tin observes, "they have a great facility in dis- 
covering what is in the minds of men by the 
least external sign they give of it, and such as 
the most sagacious men cannot perceive," and 
that they may have other means of access too to 
the mind beside these external signs ; and that 
a constant observation of human character, to 
which they are led by their favorite work of 
temptation, gives them great insight into the 
character and tempers and weakness of indi- 
viduals, may be granted ; but that the absolute, 
immediate, infallible knowledge of the thoughts 
and character belongs alone to God, is clearly 
the doctrine of Scripture: it is the Lord "who 
searcheth the heart," and "knoweth what is in 
man;" and in Jeremiah xvii. 9, 10, the know- 
ledge of the heart is attributed exclusively to 
God alone. 

Let all these things then be considered, and 
we shall be able to ascertain, at least in part, 
the limits within which this evil agency is able 



CH. XVI.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



95 



to operate in opposing the truth, and in giving 
currency to falsehood : at least, we shall he able 
to show that the Scriptures assign no power to 
this " working of Satan" to oppose the truth by 
such "signs and wonders" as many have sup- 
posed. In no instance can evil spirits oppose 
the truth, we do not say by equal, or nearly 
equal miracles and prophecies, but by real ones 
— of both, their works are but simulations. We 
take the case of miracles. A creature cannot 
create: this is the doctrine of Scripture, and it 
will serve to explain the wonders of the Egyptian 
magi. They were, we think, very far above the 
sleight of hand of mere men unassisted ; and we 
have seen, that as idolatry is diabolic, and even 
is the worship of devils themselves, and the in- 
strument of their opposition to God, the Scrip- 
tures suppose them to be exceedingly active in 
its support. It is perfectly accordant with this 
principle, therefore, to conclude that Pharaoh's 
priests had as much of the assistance of the de- 
mons whose ministers they were, as they were 
able to exert. But then the great principles we 
have just deduced from Scripture, oblige us to 
limit this power. It was not a power of working 
real miracles, but of simulating them in order to 
uphold the credit of idolatry. Now the three 
miracles of Moses which were simulated, all in- 
volved a creating energy. A serpent was created 
out of the matter of the rod : the frogs, from 
their immense multitude, appear also to have 
been created ; and blood was formed out of the 
matter of water. But in the imitations of the 
magi, there was no creation : we are forbidden 
by the doctrine of Scripture to allow this, and 
therefore there must have been deception and 
the substitution of one thing for another ; which, 
though performed in a manner apparently much 
above human adroitness, might be very much 
within the power of a number of invisible and 
active spirits. Serpents, in a country where they 
abound, might be substituted for rods: frogs, 
which, after they had been brought upon the 
land by Moses, were numerous enough, might 
be suddenly thrown upon a cleared place ; and 
the water, which could only be obtained by dig- 
ging — for the plague of Moses was upon all the 
streams and reservoirs, and the quantity being 
in consequenco very limited — might by their in- 
visible activity be easily mixed with blood or a 
coloring matter. In all this there was something 
of the imposturo of the priests, and much of the 
assistance of Satan ; but in the strict sense no 
miracle was wrought by either, wliilo the works 
of Moses were, from their extent, unequivocally 
miraculous. 

For the reasons wo havo given, no apparent 
miracles wrought in support of falsehood can 



for a moment become rivals of the great mira- 
cles by which the revelations of the Scripture 
are attested. For instance, nothing like that 
of feeding several thousands of people with a 
few loaves and fishes can occur, for that sup- 
poses creation of the matter and the form of 
bread and fish: no giving life to the dead, for 
the "issues from death" belong exclusively to 
God. Accordingly, we find in the "signs and 
wonders" wrought by the false prophets and 
Christs predicted in Matthew, whether we sup- 
pose them mere impostors, or the immediate 
agents of Satan also, nothing of this decisive 
kind to attest their mission. Theudas promised 
to divide Jordan, and seduced many to follow 
him ; but he was killed by the Roman troops 
before he could perform his miracle. Another 
promised that the walls of Jerusalem should fall 
clown; but his followers were also put to the 
sword by Felix. The false Christ, Barchocheba, 
raised a large party ; but no miracles of his are 
recorded. Another arose, A. D. 434, and pre- 
tended to divide the sea ; but hid himself after 
many of his besotted followers had plunged into 
it, in faith that it would retire from them, and 
were drowned. Many other false Christs ap- 
peared at different times; but the most noted 
was Sabbatai Sevi, in 1666. The delusion of 
the Jews with respect to him was very great. 
Many of his followers were strangely affected, 
prophesied of his greatness, and appeared by 
their contortions to be under some supernatural 
influence ; but the grand seignior, having appre- 
hended Sabbatai, gave him the choice of proving 
his Messiahship, by suffering a body of archers 
to shoot at him — after which, if he was not 
wounded, he would acknowledge him to be the 
Messias — or, if he declined this, that he should 
be impaled, or turn Turk. He chose the latter, 
and the delusion was dissipated. 

Now, whatever "signs or wonders" may be 
wrought by any of these, it is clear, from the 
absence of all record of any unequivocal mira- 
cle, that they were cither illusions or impostures. 

The same course of remark applies to prophecy. 
To know the future certainly, is the special pre- 
rogative of God. The falso prophet anticipated 
by Moses in Deuteronomy, who was to utter 
wonderful predictions which should "com* to 
pass," is not, therefore, to be supposed to utter 
predictions strictly ami truly, ;is founded upon 
an absolute knowledge of the future. A slnvwd 
man may guoss happily in some instances, and 
his conjectures when accomplished may appear 
to be "a sign and a wonder" to B people willing 
to bo deceived, because loving the idolatry to 
Which he would lend them. Still further, the 

Scripture dootrine does not diaoountenanoc the 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



idea of an evil supernatural agency "working" 
with him ; and then the superior sagacity of evil 
spirits may give to his conjectures, founded upon 
their own natural foresight of probabilities, a 
more decided air of prophecy, and thus aid the 
wicked purpose of seducing men from God's 
worship. Real and unequivocal prophecy is, 
however, impossible to them, and indeed we 
have no instance of any approach to it among 
the false prophets recorded in the Jewish his- 
tory. The heathen oracles may afford us also a 
comment on this. They were exceedingly numer- 
ous : many of them were highly celebrated : all 
professed to reveal the future : some wonderful 
stories are recorded of them ; and it is difficult 
to refer the whole to the imposture of priests, 
though much of that was ultimately detected. 
That they kept their credit for two thousand 
years, and were silenced by the spread of the 
gospel, and that almost entirely before the time 
of the establishment of Christianity by Con- 
stantine, as acknowledged by heathen authors 
themselves — that they were in many instances 
silenced by individual Christians, is openly de- 
clared in the apologies of the Christian fathers, 
so that the Pythonie inspiration could never be 
renewed — these are all strong presumptions, at 
least, that, in this mockery of the Oracle of Zion, 
this counterfeit of the standing evidence given 
by prophecy to truth, there was much of diaboli- 
cal agency, though greatly mingled with impost- 
ure. 1 Nevertheless, the ambiguity and obscurity 
by which the oracles sported with the credulity 
of the heathen, and miserably seduced them, 
often to the most diabolical wickednesses, and 
yet, in many cases, whatever might happen, pre- 
served the appearance of having told the truth, 
sufficiently proved the want of a certain and 
clear knowledge of the future ; and, upon the 
showing of their own writers, nothing was ever 
uttered by an oracle which, considered as pro- 
phecy, can be for a moment put in comparison 
with the least remarkable of those Scripture pre- 
dictions which are brought forward in proof of 
the truth of the Scriptures. When they are 
brought into comparison, the most celebrated of 
them appear contemptible. 2 We may then very 
confidently conclude, that as Scripture nowhere 
represents any "signs or wonders" as actually 
wrought to contradict the evidence of the Divine 
commission of Moses, of Christ and his apostles, 
so in those passages in which it supposes that 
they may occur, and predicts that they will be 
wrought in favor of falsehood, and, in the case of 

1 This subject is acutely and learnedly discussed in "An 
Answer to M. de Fontenelle's History of Oracles, translated 
from the French by a Priest of the Church of England." 

2 See note B at the end of the chapter. 



[part I. 

the false Christs, in opposition to the true Mes- 
siah, they do not give any countenance to the 
notion that either real miracles can be wrought, 
or real predictions uttered, even by the permis- 
sion of God, in favor of falsehood ; for no per- 
mission, properly speaking, can be given to any 
being to do what he has not the natural power 
to effect ; and permission in this case, to mean 
any thing, must, imply that God himself wrought 
the miracles, and gave the predictions, through 
the instrumentality of a creature it is true, but 
in fact that he employed his Divine power in 
opposition to his own truth — a dishonorable 
thought which cannot certainly be maintained. 
His permission may, however, extend to a license 
to evil men, and evil spirits too, to employ, against 
the truth and for the seduction of men, whatever 
natural power they possess. This is perfectly 
consistent with the general doctrine of Scripture ; 
but this permission is granted under rule and 
limit. Thus the history of Job is highly import- 
ant, as it shows that evil spirits cannot employ 
their power against a good man without express 
permission. An event in the history of Jesus 
teaches also that they cannot destroy even an 
animal of the vilest kind, a swine, without the 
same license. Moral ends too were to be an- 
swered in both cases — teaching the doctrine of 
Providence to future generations by the example 
of Job ; and punishing the Gadarenes in their 
property for their violation of the law through 
covetousness. So entirely are these invisible 
opposers of the truth and plans of Christ under 
control; and as moral ends are so explicitly 
marked in these instances, they may be inferred 
as to every other, where permission to work evil 
or injury is granted, ta the cases indeed before 
us, such moral purposes do not entirely rest 
upon inference, but are made evident from the 
history. The agency of Satan was permitted in 
support of idolatry in Egypt, only to make the 
triumph of the true God over idols more illustri- 
ous, and to justify his severe judgments upon 
the Egyptians. The false prophets anticipated 
in Deuteronomy were permitted, as it is stated, 
in order "to prove the people." A new circum- 
stance of trial was introduced, which would lead 
them to compare the pretended predictions of 
the false prophet with the illustrious and well- 
sustained series of splendid miracles by which 
the Jewish economy had been established — a 
comparison which could not fail to confirm ra- 
tional and virtuous men in the truth, and to 
render more inexcusable those light and vain 
persons who might be seduced. This observa- 
tion may also be applied to the case of the false 
Christs. In certain of these cases there is also 
something judicial. When men have yielded 



en. xvi.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



97 



themselves so far to vice as to seek error as its 
excuse, it seems a principle of the Divine gov- 
ernment to make their sin their punishment. 
The Egyptians were besotted with their idola- 
tries: they had rejected the clearest evidences 
of the truth, and were left to the delusions of 
the demons they worshipped. The Israelites, in 
those parts of their history to which Moses 
refers, were passionately inclined to idolatry: 
they wished any pretence or sanction for it, and 
were ready to follow every seducer. What they 
sought they found — occasions of going astray, 
which would have had no effect upon them had 
their hearts been right with God. The Jews 
rejected a spiritual Messiah, with all the evi- 
dences of his mission ; but were ready to follow 
any impostor who promised them victory and 
dominion : they were disposed, therefore, to listen 
to every pretence, and to become the dupes of 
every illusion. But in no instance was the 
temptation either irresistible, or even strong, ex- 
cept as it was made so by their own violent incli- 
nations to evil, and proneness to find pretences 
for it. In all the cases here supposed, the 
temptation to error was never present but in 
circumstances in which it was confronted with the 
infinitely higher evidence of truth, and that not 
merely in the number or greatness of the mira- 
cles and predictions, but in the very nature of 
the "signs" themselves — one being unquestiona- 
bly miraculous, the other being at best strange and 
surprising, without a decided miraculous or pro- 
phetic character. The sudden and unperceived 
substitution of serpents for the rods of the ma- 
gicians, might, if the matter had ended there, 
have neutralized the effect of the real transfor- 
mation of Aaron's rod ; but then the serpent of 
Moses swallowed up the others. When frogs 
were already over all the land of Egypt, the imi- 
tation must have been confined to some spot 
purposely freed from them, and for that reason 
did not boar an unequivocal character ; nor could 
the turning of water from a well into blood, (no 
difficult matter to pretend,) rival for an instant 
the conversion of the waters of the mighty Nile, 
and the innumerable channels and reservoirs fed 
by it, into that offensive substance. To these we 
are to add the miracles which followed, and 
which obliged even the magicians to confess 
"the finger of God/' To the people whom the 
false prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy should 
attempt to lead astray from the law, all its mag- 
nificent evidences were known : the glory of God 
was then between the cherubim : the Urim and 
Thummim gave their responses; and the gov- 
ernment was a, Standing miracle. To thoso who 

followed false Christs, the evidences of the mis- 
eion <>(' Jesus were known : his unequivocal mira- 



cles, it is singular, were never denied by those 
very Jews who, ever looking out for deception, 
cried as to the expected Christ, "Lo, he is here, 
and lo, he is there!" The "working of Satan," 
and the "lying wonders," mentioned in the Thes- 
salonians, were to take place among a people 
who not only had the words of Christ and his 
apostles, but acknowledged too their Divine 
authority as established by miracles and pro- 
phecies, the unequivocal character of which 
theirs never even pretended to equal. Thus, in 
none of the instances adduced in the argument, 
was there any exposure to inevitable error, by 
any evidence in favor of falsehood : the evidence 
of the truth was in all these cases at hand, and 
presented itself under an obviously distinct and 
superior character. We conclude, therefore, that 
the objection to the conclusive nature of the 
proof of the truth of the Scriptures from mira- 
cles and prophecies grounded upon the supposed 
admission that miracles may be wrought and 
prophecies uttered in favor of error, is not only 
without foundation, but that, as far as scriptural 
evidence goes on this subject, the demonstrative 
nature of real miracles and prophecies is, by 
what it really admits as to the "working of 
Satan," abundantly confirmed. It does not admit 
that real miracles can be wrought, or real pro- 
phecies uttered ; and it never supposes simu- 
lated ones, when opposed to revealed truth, but 
under circumstances in which they can be de- 
tected, or which give them an equivocal charac- 
ter, and in which they may be compared with 
true miracles and predictions, so that none can 
be deceived by them but those who are violently 
bent on error and transgression. 

Another objection to the conclusiveness of the 
proof from miracles, is brought from the pre- 
tended heathen miracles of Aristeas, Pythagoras, 
Alexander of Pontus, Vespasian, and Apollonius 
Tyangeus, and from accounts of miracles in the 
Romish Church ; but as this objection has been 
very feebly urged by the adversaries of Christi- 
anity, as though they themselves were ashamed 
of the argument, our notice of it shall be brief. 
For a full consideration of the objection we refer 
to the authors mentioned below. 1 

With respect to most of these pretended 
miracles, we may observe, that it was natural to 
expect that pretences to miraculous powers 
should bo mado under every form of religion. 
since the opinion of tho earliest ages was in favor 
of tho occurrenco of Buch events: and as truth 
had been thus sanctioned, it is net surprising 
that error should attempt to counterfeit it< 



1 Macknkiiit's Truth of tii.< Gospel History; Douglas's 
Critorion : OahfbxUiOD Miracles; and Paer*8 Brldenoa* 






98 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



authority. But they are all deficient in evidence. 
Many of them indeed are absurd, and carry the 
air of fable ; and as to others, it is well observed 
by Dr. Macknight, [Truth of the Gospel History,) 
that "they are vouched to us by no such testi- 
mony as can induce a prudent man to give them 
credit. They are not reported by any eye-wit- 
nesses of them, nor by any persons on whom 
they were wrought. Those who relate them do 
not even pretend to have received them from eye- 
witnesses ; we know them only by vague reports, 
the original of which no one can exactly trace. 
The miracles ascribed to Pythagoras were not 
reported until several hundred years after his 
death; and those of Apollonius, one hundred 
years after his death." Many instances which 
are given, especially among the papists, may 
be resolved into imagination : others, both 
popish and pagan, into the artifice of priests, 
who were of the ruling party, and therefore 
feared no punishment even upon detection ; 
and in almost all cases, we find that they 
were performed in favor of the dominant reli- 
gion, and before persons whose religious pre- 
judices were to be flattered and strengthened by 
them, and, of course, persons very much dis- 
posed to become dupes. Bishop Douglas has laid 
down the following decisive and clear rules in his 
" Criterion," for trying miracles. That we may 
reasonably suspect any accounts of miracles to 
be false, if they are not published till long after 
the time when they are said to have been per- 
formed — or if they were not first published in 
the place where they are said to have been 
wrought — or if they probably were suffered to 
pass without examination in the time, and at the 
place, where they took their rise. These are 
general grounds of suspicion, to which may be 
added particular ones, arising from any circum- 
stances which plainly indicate imposture and 
artifice on the one hand, or credulity and imagi- 
nation on the other. 

Before such tests, all pagan, popish, and other 
pretended miracles, without exception, shrink; 
and they are not for a moment to be brought into 
comparison with works wrought publicly in the 
sight of thousands, and those often opposers of 
the system to be established by them — works not 
by any ingenuity whatever to be resolved into 
artifice on the one part, or into the effects of 
imagination on the other — works performed be- 
fore scholars, statesmen, rulers, persecutors : of 
which the instances are numerous, and the places 
in which they occurred various — works published 
at the time, and on the very spot — works not in 
favor of a ruling system, but directed against 
every other religious establishment under heaven ; 
and for giving their testimony to which, the 



[part I. 



original witnesses had therefore to expect, and 
did in succession receive, reproach, stripes, im- 
prisonment, and death. 

It is also of importance to observe, that what- 
ever those pretended miracles might be, whether 
false or exaggerated relations, or artful impos- 
tures ; or even were we to admit some of them 
to have been occurrences of an extraordinary 
and inexplicable kind, they are for the most part, 
whether pagan or papal, a sort of insulated oc- 
currences, which do not so much as profess to 
prove any thing of common interest to the world. 
As they are destitute of convincing marks of 
credibility, so they have no inherent propriety, 
nor any perceptible connection with a design of 
importance to mankind. But "the Scriptures 
of the Old Testament record a continued succes- 
sion of wonderful works, connected also in a 
most remarkable manner with the system carried 
on from the fall of Adam to the coming of Christ. 
The very first promise of a Redeemer, who should 
bruise the serpent's head, appears to have been 
accompanied with a signal miracle, by which the 
nature of the serpent tribe was instantly changed, 
and reduced to a state of degradation and base- 
ness, expressive of the final overthrow of that 
evil spirit, through whose deceits man had fallen 
from his innocence and glory. The mark set 
upon Cain was probably some miraculous change 
in his external appearance, transmitted to his 
posterity, and serving as a memorial of the first 
apostasy from the true religion. The general 
deluge was a signal instance of miraculous pun- 
ishment inflicted upon the whole human race, 
when they had departed from the living God, and 
were become utterly irreclaimable. The disper- 
sion of Babel, and the confusion of tongues, in- 
| dicated the Divine purpose of preventing an 
intermixture of idolaters and Atheists with the 
I worship of the true God. The wonders wrought 
in Egypt by the hand of Moses, were pointedly 
! directed against the senseless and abominable 
idolatries of that devoted country, and were 
manifestly designed to expose their absurdity 
and falsehood, as well as to effect the deliverance 
| of God's people, Israel. The subsequent miracles 
, in the desert, had an evident tendency to wean 
j the Israelites from an attachment to the false 
deities of the surrounding nations, and to instruct 
I them by figurative representations in that ' better 
covenant, established upon better promises,'' of which 
I the Mosaic institute was designed to be a shadow 
and a type. The settlement of the Israelites in 
Canaan under their leader Joshua, and their con- 
j tinuance in it for a long succession of ages, were 
( accompanied with a series of wonders, all ope- 
\ rating to that one purpose of the Almighty, the 
separation of his people from a wicked and 






CH. XYI ] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



apostate world, and the preservation of a chosen 
seed, through whom all the nations of the earth 
should be blessed. Every miracle wrought under 
the Jewish theocracy, appears to have been in- 
tended, either to correct the superstitions and 
impieties of the neighboring nations, and to bring 
them to a conviction that the Lord Jehovah was 
the true God, and that beside him there was none 
other; or to reclaim the Jews, whenever they 
betrayed a disposition to relapse into heathenish 
abominations, and to forsake that true religion 
which the Almighty was pledged to uphold 
throughout all ages, and for the completion of 
which he was then, in his infinite wisdom, 
arranging all human events. 

"In the miracles which our Lord performed, 
he not only evinced his Divine power, but fulfilled 
many important prophecies relating to him as the 
Messiah. Thus they afforded a two-fold evidence 
of his authority. In several of them we perceive 
likewise a striking reference to the especial 
object of his mission. Continually did he apply 
these wonderful works to the purpose of incul- 
cating and establishing doctrines no less wonderful 
and interesting to the sons of men. 

"The same may likewise be remarked of the 
miracles recorded of the apostles, after our 
Lord's departure from this world, in none of 
which do we find any thing done for mere osten- 
tation; but an evident attention to the great 
purpose of the gospel, that of 'turning men from 
darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan 
unto God.' 

"It seems impossible for any thinking man to 
take such a view as this of the peculiar design 
and use of the Scripture miracles, and not to 
perceive in them the unerring counsels of infinite 
wisdom, as well as the undoubted exertions of 
infinite power. When we see the several parts 
of this stupendous scheme thus harmonizing and 
cooperating for the attainment of one specific 
object, of the highest importance to the whole 
race of mankind, we cannot but be struck with 
a conviction of the absolute impossibility of im- 
posture or enthusiasm, in any part of the pro- 
ceeding. We are compelled to acknowledge that 
they exhibit proofs of Divine agency, carried on 
in one continued series, such as no other system 
hath ever pretended to : such as not only sur- 
passes all human ingenuity, but seems impossible 
to have been effected by any combination of 
created beings." — Van Mildert's Boyle Lec- 
tures. 

On miracles, therefore, liko those which attest 
the mission of Moses and of Christ, wo may 
safely rest tho proof of the authority of both, 
and say to each of them, though with a due sense 
of tho superiority of the "Son" to tho "ser- 



vant," "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher 
come from God, for no man can do these miracles 
that thou doest, except God be with him." 



Note A. 

In reply to the objection that " Moses describes the works 
of the magicians in the very same language as he does his 
own, and therefore that there is reason to conclude that 
they were equally miraculous," Dr. Farmer remarks, — 

"1. That nothing is more common than to speak of pro- 
fessed jugglers as doing what they pretend and appear to 
do, and that this language never misleads, when we reflect 
what sort of men are spoken of, namely, mere impostors 
on the sight : why might not Moses then use the common 
popular language when speaking of the magicians, without 
any danger of misconstruction, inasmuch as the subject he 
was treating, all the circumstances of the narrative, and 
the opinion which the historian was known to entertain 
of the inefficacy and imposture of magic, did all concur to 
prevent mistakes ? 

'•' 2. Moses does not affirm that there was a perfect conform- 
ity between his works and those of the magicians : he does 
not close the respective relations of his own particular 
miracles with saying the magicians did that thing, or ac- 
cording to what lie did, so did they, a form of speech used on 
this occasion no less than three times in one chapter, to 
describe the exact correspondence between the orders of 
God and the behavior of his servants ; but makes choice 
of a word of great latitude, such as does not necessarily 
express any thing more than a general similitude, such as 
is consistent with a difference in many important respects 
— they did so or in like manner as he had. That a perfect 
imitation could not be designed by this word, is evident 
from its being applied to cases in which such an imitation 
was absolutely impracticable; for, when Aaron had con- 
verted all the waters of Egypt into blood, we are told the 
magicians did so, that is, something in like sort. Nor can 
it be supposed that they covered the land of Egypt with 
frogs ; this had been done already : they could only appear 
to bring them over some 6mall space cleared for the pur- 
pose. But what is more decisive, the word imports nothing 
more than their attempting some imitation of Moses, for it 
is used when they failed in their attempt : They did so to 
bring forth lice, bid they could not. 

" 3. So far is Moses from ascribing the tricks of the magi- 
cians to the invocation and power of demons, or to any 
superior beings whatever, that he does most expressly 
refer all they did or attempted in imitation of himself to 
human artifice and imposture. The original words, which 
are translated inchantments, 1 are entirely different from 

i The original word used, Exod. vii. 11, is Bel&hatehem ; 
and that which occurs, ch. vii. 22, and ch. viii. 7, IS, is 
Belatehem: tho former is probably derived from L;\Jrat, 
which signifies to burn, and the substantivo a fame or 
shining swordMade, and is applied to tho flaming sword 
which guarded tho tree of life, Gen. iii. 24. Those who 
formerly used legerdemain, dazzled and deceived tho Bight 
of spectators by the art of brandishing their swords, and 
sometimes seemed to cat them, and to thrust them into 
their bodies; and the expression seems to intimate, that 

the magicians appearing to turn their rods into Berpents, 

was owing to their eluding the eyes of the spectators !'.\ t 
dexterous management of their swords, in the preceding 
Instances they made use o\' some different contrivance, for 

the latter word, b&ltehtm, comes from /.ia'. to 
hide, (which some think (lie former word also doe 

therefore lltly expresses any Beoret artifices or methods of 
deception, Whereby false appearances are imposed upon the 
spectators. 



100 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



[PART I. 



that rendered enchantments in other passages of Scripture, 
and do not carry in them any sort of reference to sorcery 
cr magic, or the interposition of any spiritual agents : they 
import deception and concealment, and ought to haTe been 
rendered secret sleights or jugglings, and are thus translated 
ever by those who adopt the common hypothesis -with re- 
gard to the magicians. These secret sleights and jugglings 
are expressly referred to the magicians, not to the devil, 
' Sit is not so much as mentioned in the history. Should 
ive therefore be asked, 1 how it came to pass, in case the 
works of the magicians were performed by sleight of hand, 
that Moses has given no hint hereof? we answer, He has 
not contented himself with a hint of this kind, but, at the 
same time that he ascribes his own miracles to Jehovah, he 
has, in the most direct teryns, resolved every thing done in 
imitation of them entirely to the fraudulent contrivances 
of his opposers, to legerdemain or sleight of hand, in con- 
tradistinction from magical incantations. Moses therefore 
could not design to represent their works as real miracles, 
at the very time he was branding them as impostures. 

'•It remains only to show, that the works performed by 
the magicians did not exceed the cause to which they are 
ascribed ; or, in other words, the magicians proceeded no 
further in imitation of Moses, than human artifice might 
enable them to go, (while the miracles of Moses were not 
liable to the same impeachment, and bore upon themselves 
the plainest signatures of that Divine power to which they 
are referred.) If this can be proved, the interposition of 
the devil on this occasion will appear to be an hypothesis 
invented without any kind of necessity, as it certainly is 
without any authority from the sacred text. 

K 1. With regard to the first attempt of the magicians, 
the turning rods into serpents, it cannot be accounted ex- 
traordinary that they should seem to succeed in it, when 
we consider that these men were famous for the art of 
dazzling and deceiving the sight : and that serpents, being 
first rendered tractable and harmless, as they easily may, 
have had a thousand different tricks played with them, to 
the astonishment of the spectators. 

" 2. With regard to the next attempt of the magicians to 
imitate Moses, who had already turned all the running and 
standing waters of Egypt into blood, there is no difficulty 
in accounting for their success in the degree in which they 
succeeded. For it was during the continuance of this 
judgment, when no water could be procured but by digging 
round about the river, that the magicians attempted by 
some proper preparations to change the color of the small 
quantity that was brought them, (probably endeavoring to 
persuade Pharaoh that they could as easily have turned a 
larger quantity into blood.) In a case of this nature im- 
posture might, and, as we learn from history, often did 
take place. It is related by Valerius Maximus, (Lib. i. c. 
6,) that the wine poured into the cup of Xerxes was three 
times changed into blood. But such trifling feats as these 
could not at all disparage the miracle of Moses : the vast 
extent of which raised it above the suspicion of fraud, and 
stamped upon every heart, that was not steeled against all 
conviction, the strongest impression of its divinity. For 
he turned their streams, rivers, ponds, and the water in 
all their receptacles, into blood. And the fish that was in 
the river (Xile) died ; and the river stank. Exod. vii. 19-21. 
' : 3. Pharaoh not yielding to this evidence, God proceed- 
ed to further punishments, and covered the whole land of 
Egypt with frogs .2 Before these frogs were removed, the 
magicians undertook to bring into some place cleared for 
the purpose a fresh supply; which they might easily do 



1 As we are by Dr. Macknight. in his Truth of the Gospel 
p. 372. 

1. viii. 6-8. Xor, indeed, can it be imagined, that 
after this or the former plague had been removed, Pharaoh 
would order his magicians to renew either. 



when there was such plenty everywhere at hand. Here 
also the narrow compass of the work exposed it to the 
suspicion of being effected by human art ; to which the 
miracle of Moses was not liable : the infinite number of 
frogs which filled the whole kingdom of Egypt, (so that 
their ovens, beds, and tables swarmed with them.) being 
a proof of their immediate miraculous production. Besides, 
the magicians were unable to procure their removal ; which 
was accomplished by Moses, at the submissive application 
of Pharaoh, and at the very time that Pharaoh himself 
chose, the more clearly to convince him that God was the 
author of these miraculous judgments, and that their in- 
fliction or removal did not depend upon the influence of 
the elements or stars, at set times or in critical junctures, 
Exod. viii. 8. 

"4. The history of the last attempt of the magicians 
confirms the account here given of all their former ones. 
Moses turned all the dust of the land into lice ; and this 
plague, like the two preceding ones, being inflicted at the 
word of Moses, and extended over the whole kingdom of 
Egypt, must necessarily have been owing, not to human 
art, but to a Divine power. Nevertheless, the motives 
upon which the magicians at first engaged in the contest 
with Moses, the shame of desisting, and some slight appear- 
ances of success in their former attempts, prompted them 
still to carry on the imposture, and to try with their en- 
chantments to bring forth lice, but they coidd not. With all 
their skill in magic, and with all their dexterity in deceiv- 
ing the spectators, they could not even succeed so far as 
they had done in former instances, by producing a specious 
counterfeit of this work of Moses. Had they hitherto per- 
formed real miracles by the assistance of the devil, how 
came they to desist now? It cannot be a greater miracle 
to produce lice, than to turn rods into serpents, water into 
blood, and to create frogs. It has, indeed, been Tery often 
said, that the devil was now laid under a restraint; but 
hitherto no proof of this assertion has been produced. 
The Scripture is silent, both as to the devil being now re- 
strained from interposing any further in favor of the 
magicians, and as to his having afforded them his assist- 
ance on the former occasions. But if we agree with Moses 
in ascribing to the magicians nothing more than the artifice 
and dexterity which belonged to their profession, we shall 
find that their want of success in their last attempt was 
owing to the different nature and circumstances of their 
enterprise." 



XOTE B. 

'•' Br i if at any time evil spirits, by their subtlety and 
experience, and knowledge of affairs in the world, did fore- 
tell things which accordingly came to pass, they were 
things that happened not long after, and commonly such 
as themselves did excite and prompt men to. Thus, when 
the conspiracy against Corsar was come just to be put into 
execution, and the devil had his agents concerned in it, he 
could foretell the time and place of his death. But it had 
been foretold to Pompey. Crassus. and Caesar himself before, 
as Tully informs us from his own knowledge, that they 
should all die in their beds, and in an honorable old age, 
who yet all died violent deaths. Wise and observing men 
have sometimes been able to make strange predictions 
concerning the state of affairs ; and therefore spirits may 
be much more able to do it. Evil spirits could foretell what 
they were permitted to inflict or procure : they might have 
foretold the calamities of Job, or the death of Ahab at Ra- 
moth-gilead. 

" The devil could not always foretell what was to come 
to pass, and therefore his agents had need of their vaults 
and hollow statues, and other artifices to conceal their 
ignorance, and help them out, when their arts of conjura- 






CII. XVII.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



101 



tion failed. But we have no reason to think that the devil, 
who is so industrious to promote his evil ends, by all pos- 
sible means, would omit such an opportunity as was given 
him by the opinion which the heathens had of their 
oracles ; and the trials which Croesus and Trajan made are 
sufficient to prove that there was something supernatural 
and diabolical in them. Croesus sent to have many oracles 
consulted at a set time, and the question to be put to them 
was, what Croesus himself at that time w r as doing ; and he 
resolved to be employed about the most improbable thing 
that could be imagined, for he was boiling a tortoise and a 
lamb together in a brass pot ; and yet the oracle of Delphi 
discovered to the messengers what the king was then about. 
Trajan, when he was going into Parthia, sent a blank paper 
sealed up, to an oracle of Assyria for an answer: the oracle 
returned him another blank paper, to show that it was not 
so to be imposed upon. 

" But though things of present concernment were dis- 
covered both to Croesus and Trajan beyond all human 
power to know, 3 T et both were imposed upon by ambiguous 
answers, when they consulted about things future, of which 
the devil could not attain the knowledge. 

" Many of the heathen priests themselves, upon examin- 
ation, publicly confessed several of their oracles to be 
impostures, and discovered the whole contrivance and 
management of the deceit, which was entered upon record. 
And in the rest, the power of the devil was always so limit- 
ed and restrained, as to afford sufficient means to undeceive 
men, though many of his predictions might come to pass." 
— Jenkins's Reasonableness of Christianity. 

" Many of the learned regard all the heathen oracles as 
the result of the grossest imposture. Some consider them 
as the work of evil spirits. Others are of opinion, that 
through these oracles some real prophecies were occasion- 
ally vouchsafed to the Gentile world, for their instruction 
and consolation. But to whichsoever of these opinions 
we may incline, it will not be difficult to discover a 
radical difference between these and the Scripture pro- 
phecies. 

" In the heathen oracles, we cannot discern any clear 
and unecpiivocal tokens of genuine prophecy. They were 
destitute of dignity and importance, had no connection 
with each other, tended to no object of general concern, 
and never looked into times remote from their own. We 
read only of some few predictions and prognostications, 
scattered among the writings of poets and philosophers, 
most of which, besides being very weakly authenticated, 
appear to have been answers to questions of merely local, 
personal, and temporary concern, relating to the issue of 
affairs then actually in hand, and to events speedily to be 
determined. Far from attempting to form any chain of 
prophecies, respecting things far distant as to time or place, 
or matters contrary to human probability, and requiring 
supernatural agency to effect them, the heathen priests 
and soothsayers did not even pretend to a systematic and 
connected plan. They hardly dared, indeed, to assumo the 
prophetic character in its full force, but stood trembling, 
as it were, on the brink of futurity, conscious of their 
inability to venture beyond the depths of human conject- 
ure. Hence their predictions became so fleeting, so futile, 
so uninteresting, that they were never collected together 
as worthy of preservation, but soon fell into disrepute and 
almost !>>lal oblivion. 

"'Die Scripture prophecies, on the other hand, consti- 
tute a series of predictions, relating principally to our 
grand object, of universal Importance, the work of man's 
redemption, and carried on in regular progression through 
tin' Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, with 
a harmony ami uniformity of design, clearly indicating 

one ami the same Divine Aulbor, ulm alone COUld .-ay. 

'Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and 
there is none else; I am God, and there is aone i i u<> me: 
declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient 



times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel 
shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.' The genuine 
prophets of the Almighty beheld these things with a clear 
and steadfast eye : they declared them with authority and 
confidence ; and they gave, moreover, signs from heaven 
for the conviction of others. Accordingly, their writings 
have been handed down from age to age ; have been pre- 
served with scrupulous fidelity; and have ever been 
regarded with reverence, from the many incontestable 
evidences of their accomplishment, and from their in- 
separable connection with the religious hopes and expecta- 
tions of mankind." — Bishop of Llandaff. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

PROPHECIES OF SCRIPTURE. 

The nature and force of the argument from 
prophecy have been already stated ; ( Vide chap, 
ix. ;) and it has been proved, that where real pre- 
dictions are uttered — not happy conjectures "which 
shrewd and observing men may sometimes make, 
but predictions which imply foresight of events 
dependent upon the various contingencies of 
human affairs, and a knowledge of the char- 
acters, dispositions, and actions of persons yet 
unborn, so as to decide unerringly on the con- 
duct which they will pursue — they can only be 
uttered by inspired men, and the author of such 
communications can be no other than the infinite 
and omniscient God, " shoioing to his servants the 
things which shall be hereafter" in order to authen- 
ticate their mission, and to affix the stamp of his 
own infallible authority upon their doctrine. 

The authenticity and the antiquity of the re- 
cords which contain these predictions, have been 
already established; and the only subject of 
inquiry proper to this chapter is, the prophetic 
character of the predictions said to be con- 
tained in the Old and New Testaments. A few 
general observations may however be previously 
allowed. 

1. The instances to be considered by those 
who would fully satisfy themselves on this point 
are not few but many. The believer in the 
Divine authority of the Old and New Testaments, 
is ready to offer for examination great mun- 
bers of professed prophecies relative to indi- 
viduals, cities, states, the person and offices 
of Messiah, and the Christian Church, which 
ho alleges to havo been unequivocally fulfilled : 
Independent of predictions which he, believes to 
be now fulfilling, or which arc hereafter b 
fulfilled in the world. 

2. If as to the fulfilment of some particular 
propheoies, the opinions oi' men should d 
there is an abundanoe of others, the accomplish- 
ment of which has been so evident as to defy 



102 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



any rational interpretation which -will not involve 
fulfilment: while unbelievers are chal- 
lenged to show any clear prediction of Holy 
Scripture which has been falsified by the : 
£hi oughout the whole range of those ages which 
raprehended by the Bible, from the Penta- 
teuch to the Apocalyj a 

3. The predictions in Scripture hare already 
been distinguished in their character from the 
oracles and divinations of the heathen ; ( Vide 
chap. xvi. ;) and it may be here further ob- 
! ".. that they are not, generally, separate 
and insulated predictions of the future, arising 
out of accidental circumstances, and connecting 
themselves with merely individual interests and 
temporary occasions. On the contrary, they 
chiefiy relate to and arise out of a grand scheme 
for the moral recovery of the human race from 
ignorance, vice, and wretchedness. They speak 
of the agents to be employed in it, and espe- 
cially of the great agent, the Redeemer him- 
self; and of those mighty and awful proceedings 
of Providence as to the nations of the earth, by 
which judgment and mercy are exercised with 
reference both to the ordinary principles of moral 
government, and especially to this restoring 
economy, to its struggles, its oppositions, and 
its Mnmphtt. They all meet in Cheist, as in 
their proper centre, and in him only, however 
many of the single lines, when considered apart, 
may be imagined to have another direction, and 
though they may pass through intermediate 
events. ••If we look." says Bishop Hurd, "into 
the prophetic writings, we find that prophecy is 
of a prodigious extent ; that it co mm enced from 
the fall of man, and reaches to the consumma- 
tion of all things ; that for many ages it was de- 
livered darkly, to a few persons, and with large 
intervals from the date of one prophecy to that 
cf another: but at length became more clear, 
more frequent, and was uniformly carried on in 
the line of one people, separated from the rest 
of the world — among other reasons assigned, for 
principally, to be the repository of the 
Divine Oracles : that, with some intermission, 
the spirit of prophecy subsisted among that 
people to the coming of Christ ; that he himself, 
and his apostles, exercised this power in the 
most conspicuous manner ; and left behind them 
many predictions recorded in the books of the 
New Testament, which profess to respect very 
distant events, and even run out to the end 
of time, or, in St. Johns expression, to that 
period 'when the mystery of God shall be per- 
fected.' Further, besides the extent of this pro- 
phetic scheme, the dignity of the person whom it 
concerns deserves our consideration. He is 
described in terms which excite the most august 



and magnificent ideas. He is spoken of, indeed, 
sometimes as being the seed of the woman, and as 
rum : yet so as being at the same time 
of more than mortal extraction. He is even 
represented to us as being superior to men and 
angels : as far above all principality and power ; 
above all that is accounted great, whether in 
heaven or in earth: as the "Word and Wisdom 
of God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as 
the Heir of all things, by whom he made the 
worlds ; as the brightness of his glory, and the 
express image of his person. We have no 
words to denote greater ideas than these : the 
mind of man cannot elevate itself to nobler con- 
ceptions. Of such transcendent worth and ex- 
cellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom all the 
prophets bear witness .' 

'•Lastly, the declared purpose for which the 
Messiah, prefigured by so long a train of pro- 
phecy, came into the world, corresponds to all 
the rest of the representation. It was not to 
deliver an oppressed nation from civil tyranny, 
or to erect a great civil empire ; that is, to 
achieve one of those acts which history accounts 
most heroic. Xo : it was not a mighty state, a 
! victor people — 

Non res Eomanje peritaraque regna — 

that was worthy to enter into the contemplation 
! of this Divine person. It was another, and far 
sublimer purpose which he came to accomplish ; 
a purpose in comparison of which all our policies 
are poor and little, and all the performances of 
man as nothing. It was to deliver a world from 
ruin ; to abolish sin and death ; to purify and 
immortalize human nature; and thus, in the 
most exalted sense of the words, to be the 
Saviour of men and the blessing of all nations. 
There is no exaggeration in this account. I 
deliver the undoubted sense, if not always the 
very words of Scripture. Consider then to what 
this representation amounts. Let us unite the 
several parts of it, and bring them to a point. 
A spirit of prophecy pervading all time — charac- 
terizing one person, of the highest dignity — and 
proclaiming the accomplishment of one purpose, 
the most beneficent, the most Divine, the imagi- 
nation itself can project. Such is the scriptural 
delineation, whether we will receive it or no, of 
that economy which we call prophetic." 

4. Prophecy, in this peculiar sense, and on 
this ample scale, is peculiar to the religious 
system of the Holy Scriptures. Nothing like it 
is found anywhere beside ; and it accords per- 
i fectly with that system that nothing similar 
should be found elsewhere. "The prophecies 
of Scripture," says that accomplished scholar, 
Sir W. Jones, "bear no resemblance in form or 



CH. XVII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



103 



style to any that can be produced from the stores 
of Grecian, Indian, Persian, or even Arabian 
learning. The antiquity of those compositions 
no man of learning doubts; and the unrestrained 
application of them to events long subsequent to 
their publication, is a solid ground of belief that 
they were genuine predictions, and consequently 
inspired." The advantage of this species of 
evidence belongs, then, exclusively to our reve- 
lation. Heathenism never made any clear and 
well-founded pretensions to it. Mohammedan- 
ism, though it stands itself as a proof of the 
truth of Scripture prophecy, is unsupported by 
a single prediction of its own. "To the Chris- 
tian only belongs this testimony of his faith; this 
growing evidence gathering strength by length 
of time, and affording, from age to age, fresh 
proofs of its Divine origin. As a majestic river 
expands itself more and more the farther it 
removes from its source, so prophecy, issuing 
from the first promise in paradise as its fountain- 
head, acquired additional strength and fulness as 
it rolled down successive ages, and will still go 
on increasing in extent and grandeur, until it 
shall finally lose itself in the ocean of eternity." 
5. The objection which has been raised to 
Scripture prophecy from its supposed obscurity, 
has no solid foundation. There is, it is true, a 
prophetic language of symbol and emblem ; but 
it is a language which is definite and not equivo- 
cal in its meaning, and as easily mastered as the 
language of poetry, by attentive persons. This, 
however, is not always used. The style of the 
prophecies of Scripture very often differs in 
nothing from the ordinary style of the Hebrew 
poets ; and in not a few cases, and those, too, on 
which the Christian builds most in the argument, it 
sinks into the plainness of historical narrative. 
Some degree of obscurity is essential to pro- 
phecy ; for the end of it was not to gratify human 
curiosity by a detail of future events and cir- 
cumstances; and too great clearness and spe- 
ciality might have led to many artful attempts 
to fulfil the predictions, and so far the evidence 
of their accomplishment would have been weak- 
ened. The two great ends of prophecy are, to 
excite expectation before the event, and then to 
confirm the truth by a striking and unequivo- 
cal fulfilment; and it is a sufficient answer to the 
allegation of the obscurity of the prophecies of 
Scripture, that they have abundantly accom- 
plished those objects, among the most intelligent 
and investigating, as well as among the Bungle 
and unlearned in all ages, it cannoi be denied, 

for ins lance, leaving out particular eases which 

might be given, thai by means of these predic- 
tions the expectation of the incarnation and 

appearance of a Divine Bettorer was kept up 



among the people to whom they were given, and 
spread even to the neighboring nations ; that as 
these prophecies multiplied, the hope became 
more intense ; and that at the time of our Lord's 
coming, the expectation of the birth of a very 
extraordinary person prevailed, not only among 
the Jews, but among other nations. This pur- 
pose was then sufficiently answered, and an 
answer is given to the objection. In like manner 
prophecy serves as the basis of our hope in 
things yet to come : in the final triumph of truth 
and righteousness on earth, the universal esta- 
blishment of the kingdom of our Lord, and the 
rewards of eternal life to be bestowed at his 
second appearing. In these all true Christians 
agree ; and their hope could not have been so 
uniformly supported in all ages, and under all 
circumstances, had not the prophecies and pre- 
dictive promises conveyed with sufficient clear- 
ness the general knowledge of the good for which 
they looked, though many of its particulars be 
unrevealed. The second end of prophecy is, to 
confirm the truth by the subsequent event ; and 
here the question of the actual fulfilment of 
Scripture prophecy is involved, to which we shall 
immediately advert. "We only now observe, that 
it is no argument against the unequivocal fulfil- 
ment of several prophecies, that many have 
doubted or denied what the believers in revela- 
tion have on this subject so strenuously contended 
for. How few of mankind have read the Scrip- 
tures with serious attention, or been at the pain; 
to compare their prophecies with the statements 
in history! How few, especially of the objectors 
to the Bible, have read it in this manner ! How 
many of them have confessed, unblushingly, 
their unacquaintance with its contents, or have 
proved what they have not confessed by the 
mistakes and misrepresentations into which they 
have fallen. As for the Jews, the evident domi- 
nion of their prejudices, their general averseness 
to discussion, and the extravagant principles of 
interpretation they have adopted for many i 
which set all sober criticism at defiance, render 
nugatory any authority which might be ascribed 
to their denial of the fulfilment of certain pro- 
phecies in the sense adopted by Christians. We 
may add to this, that among Christian critics 
themselves there may be much disagreement. 
Eccentricities and absurdities are found among 
the learned in every department of knowledge, 
and much of this waywardness and affectation 
of singularity has infected interpreters of Scrip- 
ture- But, after all, there is a truth and reason 
in every subject which the understandings of the 
generality o[' men will apprehend and acknow- 
ledge, whenever it is fully understood and impar- 
tially considered: to this, in all such oases, the 



104 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



appeal can only be made, and here it may be 
made with confidence. 

G. For want of a right apprehension of the 
meaning of somewhat an unfortunate term which 
has obtained in theology, the "double sense" of 
many prophecies, an objection of another kind 
has been raised, as though no definite meaning 
could be assigned to the prophecies of Scripture. 
Nothing can be more unfounded. "The double 
sense of many prophecies in the Old Testament," 
says an able writer, "has been made a pretext, 
by ill-disposed men, for representing them as of 
uncertain meaning, and resembling the ambi- 
guity of the pagan oracles. But whoever consi- 
ders the subject with due attention, will perceive 
how little ground there is for such an accusation. 
The equivocations of the heathen oracles mani- 
festly arose from their ignorance of future events, 
and from their endeavors to conceal that igno- 
rance by such indefinite expressions as might be 
equally applicable to two or more events of a 
contrary description. But the double sense of 
the Scripture prophecies, far from originating in 
any doubt or uncertainty as to the fulfilment of 
them in either sense, springs from a foreknow- 
ledge of their accomplishment in both; whence 
the prediction is purposely so framed as to 
include both events, which, so far from being 
contrary to each other, are typical the one of the 
other, and are thus connected together by a 
mutual dependency or relation. This has often 
been satisfactorily proved with respect to those 
prophecies which referred, in their primary 
sense, to the events of the Old Testament, and, 
in their further and more complex signification, 
to those of the New ; and on this double accom- 
plishment of some prophecies is grounded our 
firm expectation of the completion of others which 
remain yet unfulfilled in their secondary sense, 
but which we justly consider as equally certain 
in their issue as those which are already past. 
So far, then, from any valid objection lying 
against the credibility of the Scripture prophe- 
cies from these seeming ambiguities of meaning, 
we may urge them as additional proofs of their 
coming from God. For who, but the Being who 
is infinite in knowledge and in counsel, could so 
construct predictions as to give them a two-fold 
application to events distant from and (to human 
foresight) unconnected with each other ? What 
power, less than Divine, could so frame them as 
to make the accomplishment of them, in one 
instance, a solemn pledge and assurance of their 
completion in another instance, of still higher 
and more universal importance ? Where will the 
scoffer find any thing like this in the artifices of 
heathen oracles to conceal their ignorance, and 
to impose on the credulity of mankind ?" 



I We now proceed to the enumeration of a few 
out of the great number of predictions contained 
in the Scriptures, which most unequivocally show 
a perfect knowledge of future contingent events, 
and which, therefore, according to our argument, 
as certainly prove that they who uttered them 
"spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," by 
the Spirit of the omniscient and infinitely pre- 
scient God. 1 

The very first promise made to man is a predic- 
tion which none could have uttered but He whose 
eye looks through the depths of future ages, 
and knows the result as well as the beginning 
of all things. "I will put enmity between thee and 
the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it 
shall bruise thy head, and thoushalt bruise his heel." 
In vain is it attempted to resolve the whole 
of the transaction with which this prediction 
stands connected, into allegory. Such criticism, 
if applied to any other ancient historical book 
bearing marks of authentic narration as un- 

1 " The correspondences of types and antitypes, though 
they are not proper proofs of the truth of a doctrine,, yet 
may be Tery reasonable confirmations of the foreknowledge 
of God ; of the uniform view of Providence under different 
dispensations; of the analogy, harmony, and agreement 
between the Old Testament and the New. The words of the 
law concerning one particular kind of death. He that is 
hanged is accursed of God, can hardly be conceived to have 
been put in on any other account than with a view and 
foresight to the application made of it by St. Paul. The 
analogies between the paschal lamb and the Lamb of God 
slain from the foundation of the world; between the Egypt- 
ian bondage and the tyranny of sin; between the baptism 
of the Israelites in the sea and in the cloud, and the baptism 
of CJiristians ; between the passage through the wilderness, 
and through the present world; between Joshua bringing 
the people into the promised land, and. Jesus Christ being 
the Captain of salvation to believers ; between the Sabbath 
of rest promised to the people of God in the earthly Canaan, 
and the eternal rest promised to the people of God in the 
heavenly Canaan ; between the liberty granted them from 
the time of the death of the high priest, to him tbat had fled 
into a city of refuge, and the redemption purchased by the 
death of Christ; between the high priest entering into the 
holy place every year with the blood of others, and Christ's 
once entering with his oion blood into heaven itself, to appear 
in the presence of God for us — these, I say, and innumer- 
able other analogies between the figures for the time then 
present, patterns of things in the heavens, the shadows of 
things to come, of good tilings to come, the shadows of hea- 
venly things, and the heavenly things themselves, cannot with- 
out the force of strong prejudice be conceived to have hap- 
pened by mere chance, without any foresight or. design. 
There are no such analogies, much less such series of analo- 
gies, found in the books of mere enthusiastic writers living in 
such remote ages from each other. It is much more credi- 
ble and reasonable to suppose what St. Paul affirms, that 
these things were our examples ; and that in that uniform 
course of God's government of the world, all things hap- 
pened unto them of old for ensamples, and they are written 
for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are 
come. And hence arises that aptness of similitude, in the 
application of several legal performances to the morality 
of the Gospel, that it can very hardly be supposed not to 
have been originally intended." — Dr. S. Clarke's Evidences 
of Natural and Revealed Religion, p. 263. 



CH. XVII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



105 



equivocal as the book of Genesis, -would not be 
tolerated by the advocates of this absurd concep- 
tion themselves, whether they are open or dis- 
guised infidels. In vain is it alleged that a mere 
fact of natural history is stated; for if the 
words are understood to express no more than 
the enmity between the human race and serpents, 
it would require to be proved, in order to establish 
a special punishment of the serpent, that man 
has a greater hostility to serpents than to other 
dangerous animals, which he extirpates whenever 
he can master them by force or stratagem ; and 
that serpents have a stronger disposition to do 
injury to men than to those animals which they 
make their daily prey, or to others which they 
never fail to strike when within their reach. As 
this was obviously false in fact, Moses could not 
assert it ; and, if it had been true in natural 
history, to have said this and nothing more, to 
have confined himself to the mere literal fact, a 
fact of no importance, would have been far below 
the character of Moses as a writer — a lofty and 
sublime character, to which the heathens, and 
sometimes infidels themselves, have done justice. 
In no intelligible sense can these celebrated 
words be understood but in that in which they 
are fixed by innumerable references and allusions 
of other parts of the sacred volume, and which 
ought, in all good criticism, to determine their 
meaning. The serpent and the seed of the 
woman are the representatives of two invisible 
and mighty powers — the one good, the other 
evil — the one Divine, though incarnate of the 
woman, the other diabolic ; between whom an 
enmity was placed, which was to express itself 
in a long and fearful struggle, in the course of 
which the seed of the woman should sustain a 
temporary wound and suffering, but which should 
issue in the bruising of the head, the inflicting a 
fatal blow upon the power of his adversary. 
The scene of this contest was to be our globe, 
and generally the visible agents of it men, under 
their respective leaders — the serpent on the one 
side, and the seed of the woman on the other, 
practicing, and advocating, and endeavoring to 
render dominant truth or error, virtue or vice, 
obedience to God or rebellion against his author- 
ity. We ask, then, Has such a contest of prin- 
ciples and powers taken place in the world, or 
not ? The answer must be in the affirmative ; for 
every age bears witness to it. We see it com- 
mencing in Cain and Abel : in the resistance of 
tlio antediluvians to the righteousness taught 
by Noah : in their punishment, : in the rise of 
idolatry, and the struggles of the truth in oppo- 
Bition to it: in the inflictions of singular judg- 
ments upon nations for the punishment and 
exposure of idolatry, as in the plagues of Egypt, 



the destruction of the nations of Canaan, etc. 
We trace the contest throughout the whole 
history of the Jewish nation down to the coming 
of our Lord ; and occasionally we see it extend- 
ing into the neighboring pagan nations, although 
they were generally, as apart of their punishment, 
"suffered to walk in their own ways" and Satan 
as to them was permitted to "keep his goods in 
peace," till the time of gracious visitation should 
arrive. We see the incarnate Redeemer for a 
time suffering, and at length dying. Then was 
" the hour and power of darkness:" then was his 
heel bruised; but he died only to revive again, 
more visibly and powerfully to establish his 
kingdom, and to commence his spiritual con- 
quests. In every direction were the regions 
where Satan "had his seat," penetrated by the 
heavenly light of the doctrine of Christ; and 
everywhere the most tremendous persecutions 
were excited against its unarmed and unprotected 
preachers and their converts. But the gates of 
hell prevailed not against the Church founded on 
a rock, and "Satan fell as lightning from heaven" 
— from the thrones, and temples, and judgment- 
seats, and schools of the ancient civilized world : 
the idolatry of ages was renounced : Christ was 
adored through the vast extent of the Roman 
empire, and in many of the countries beyond 
even its ample sweep. Under other forms the 
enemy revived, and the contest was renewed; 
but in every age it has been maintained. The 
principles of pure evangelical truth were never 
extinguished; and the "children of the kingdom" 
were "minished and brought low," only to render 
the renewal of the assault by unexpected agents, 
singularly raised up, more marked and more 
eminently of God. We need not run over even 
the heads of the history of the Church : what is 
the present state of things? The contest still 
continues, but with increasing zeal on the part 
of Christians, who are carrying on offensive 
operations against the most distant parts of the 
long undisturbed kingdom of darkness : placing 
there the principles of truth ; commencing war 
upon idolatry and superstition ; and establishing 
the institutions of the Christian Church with a 
success which warrants the hope that the time 
is not far distant when the "head of the serpent 
will be bruised" in all idolatrous countries, and 
the idols of modern heathen states, like those 
of old, be displaced, to introduce the worship 
of the universal Saviour, "God over all, blessed 
for ever." 

May we not ask whether all this was not 
infinitely above human foresight? Who could 
confidently state that a contest of this peculiar 
nature would Continue through successive ages; 
that men would not all go over to one or other of 



106 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART I. 



the opposing parties — nay, who could confidently 
conjecture in the age of Moses, (when the ten- 
dency to idolatry had become so strong that the 
chosen seed themselves, under the constant 
demonstration of miracles, visibly blessed while 
they remained faithful to the worship of God, 
and as eminently and visibly punished when they 
departed from it, could not be preserved from 
the infection,) that idolatry should one day be 
abolished throughout the earth ? Past experience 
and all probabilities were opposed to the hope that 
the cause of the seed of the woman should pre- 
vail, and yet it stands recorded, "It [rather He] 
shall bruise thy head." Infidels may scoff at a 
Bedeemer, and deride the notion of a tempter ; 
but they cannot deny that such a contest between 
opposite parties and principles as is here fore- 
told has actually taken place, and still continues : 
that contest, so extended, so continued, and so ter- 
minated, human foresight could not foretell ; and 
the fact established, therefore, is an accomplish- 
ment of a prophecy which could originate only 
in Divine prescience. 

The celebrated prediction of Jacob at the 
close of his life respecting the time of the 
appearing of " Shiloh," may next be considered. 

The word signifies, "He who is to be sent," or, 
"The Peace-maker." In either sense the applica- 
tion to that great Person to whom all the patri- 
archs looked forward, and the prophets gave 
witness, is obvious. Those who doubt this, are 
bound to give us a better interpretation. Before 
a certain event, a certain person was to come, to 
whom the people should be gathered. The event 
has certainly arrived, but who is the person? 
The application of the prophecy to Messiah is 
not an invention of Christians. The ancient 
Jews, as appears from their commentators, so 
understood it ; and the modern ones are unable 
to resist the evidence drawn from it in favor of 
the claims of our Lord. That it is a prediction, 
is proved from its form, and the circumstances 
under which it was delivered: that it has received 
a singular accomplishment in the person of 
Jesus of Nazareth, is also certain; and it is 
equally certain that no individual beside can be 
produced, in whom it has been in any sense 
whatever accomplished. For the ample illustra- 
tion of the prophecy, the reader is referred to 
commentators, and to Bishop Newton's well- 
known work on the prophecies. It is sufficient 
here to allege that Judah, as a tribe, remained 
till after the advent of Jesus Christ, which can- 
not be said of the long-dispersed ten tribes, and 
scarcely of Benjamin, which was merged in the 
tribe of Judah. Chubb asks where the supre- 
macy of Judah was when Nebuchadnezzar carried 
the whole nation captive to Babylon ; when 



Alexander subdued Palestine ; and when it was 
a tributary province to the Roman empire ? The 
prediction, however, does not convey the idea 
either of independent or supreme power. This 
no one tribe had when all were united in one 
state, and each had its sceptre, and its princes 
or chiefs. It is, therefore, enough to show that 
under all its various fortunes the tribe of Judah 
retained its ensigns, and its chiefs, and its tribe- 
ship, until Shiloh came. It is no uncommon 
thing for a country to be conquered, and for its 
ancient princes and government to remain, though 
as tributary. 

"With respect to the tribe of Judah during the 
captivity in Babylon, Cyrus, as we learn from 
Ezra i. 8, ordered the vessels of the temple to 
be restored to "the prince of Judah." This shows 
that the tribe was kept distinct, and that it had 
its own internal government and chief. Under 
the dominion of the Asmonean kings, the Jews 
had their rulers, their elders, and their council, 
and so under the Romans. But soon after the 
death of Christ all this was abolished, the nation 
dispersed, and the tribes utterly confounded. 
Till our Lord came, and had accomplished his 
work on earth, the tribe of Judah continued. 
This is matter of unquestionable historic fact. 
In a short time afterwards it was dispersed and 
mingled with the common mass of Jews of all 
tribes and countries : this is equally unquestion- 
able. Now again we ask, Could either human 
foresight determine this, or is the application of 
the event to the prophecy fanciful? The pre- 
diction was uttered in the very infancy of the 
state of Israel, by the father of the fathers of 
the tribes of that people. Ages passed away: 
the mightiest empires were annihilated : ten of 
the chosen tribes themselves were utterly dis- 
persed into unknown countries : another became 
so insignificant as to lose its designation: one 
only remained, which imposed its very name 
upon the nation at large, the object of pubhc 
observation until the Messiah came, and that 
tribe was Judah, the tribe spoken of in the pre- 
diction, and it remained, as it were, only to make 
the fulfilment manifest, and was then confounded 
with the relics of the rest. "What prescience 
of countless contingencies, occurring in the inter- 
vening ages, does this imply? A prescience, 
truly, which can only belong to God. 

The predictions respecting the Jewish nation, 
commencing with those of Moses, and running 
through all their prophets, are too numerous to 
be adduced. One of the most instructive and 
convincing exercises to those who have any doubt 
of the inspiration of the Scriptures, would be, 
seriously and candidly to peruse them, and, by 
the aid of those authors who have expressly and 



CH. XVII.] 



EVIDENCES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



107 



largely written on this subject, to compare the 
prophecies with their alleged fulfilment. Three 
topics are prominent in the predictions of Moses 
and the prophets generally, — the frequent and 
gross departures of the Jews from their own 
law : their signal punishment in invasions, cap- 
tivities, dispersions, oppressions, and persecu- 
tions ; and their final restoration to their own 
land. All these have taken place. Even the 
last was accomplished by the return from Babylon, 
though, in its eminent sense, it is still future. 
In pursuance of the argument, we shall show 
that each of these was above human foresight 
and conjecture. 

The apostasies and idolatries of this people 
were foretold by Moses before his death: "I 
know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt 
yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I 
have commanded you, and evil will befall you in the 
latter days," Deut. xxxi. 29 ; and he accordingly 
prophetically declares their punishment. It is, 
perhaps, scarcely possible to fix upon a stronger 
circumstance than this prediction to prove that 
Moses was truly commissioned by God, and did 
not pretend a Divine sanction in order to give 
weight to his laws and to his personal authority. 
The rebellious race whom he had first led into 
the desert had died there ; and the new genera- 
tion was much more disposed to obey their 
leader. At the moment he wrote these words, 
appearances had a favorable aspect on the future 
obedience of the people. If this had not been 
the case, the last thought a merely political man 
would have been disposed to indulge was, that 
his own favorite institutions should fall into 
desuetude and contempt ; and much less would 
he finish his public life by openly telling the 
people that he foresaw that event, even if he 
feared it. It may, indeed, be said, that he 
uttered this conviction for the purpose of giving 
a color to the threatenings which he pronounces 
against disobedience to his law, and that the 
object of those fearful menaces was to deter the 
people from departing from customs and rules 
which he was anxious, for the sake of his own 
fame, that they should observe. To this we 
answer, that Moses could not expect any weight 
to be attached by the Israelites to his threat that 
the Divine judgments would be inflicted upon 
them for not obeying his laws, unless their former 
rebellions had been immediately and signally 
marked by such visitations. Without this to 
support him, he would have appeared in a ridicu- 
lous, rather than in an impressive and sublime 
attitude before the people assembled to hear his 
last commands. For forty years his institutions 
had been often disobeyed, and if no inflictions 
of the Divine displeasure followed, what reason 



had they to credit the menaces* of Moses as to 
the future ? But if such inflictions had resulted 
from their disobedience, every thing is rational 
and consistent in this part of the conduct of their 
leader. Let the infidel choose which of these 
positions he pleases. If he think that Moses 
aimed to deter them from departing from his in- 
stitutions by empty threats, he ascribes an in- 
credible absurdity to an unquestionably wise, 
and, as infidels themselves contend, a very politic 
man ; but if his predictive threats were grounded 
upon former marked and acknowledged interpo- 
sitions of Divine Providence, the only circum- 
stance which could give them weight, he was 
God's commissioned leader, and, as he professed, 
an inspired prophet. 

It is a circumstance of great weight in the 
predictions of Moses respecting the punishment 
of the Jews, that these famines, pestilences, in- 
vasions, subjugations to foreign enemies, captivi- 
ties, etc., are represented solely as the conse- 
quences of their vicious departures from God, 
and from his laws. Now, who could foresee, 
except an inspired man, that such evils would in 
no instance take place, — that no famine, no blight, 
no invasion would occur in Judea, except in 
obvious punishment of their offences against 
their law? What was there in the common 
course of things to prevent a small state, though 
observant of the precepts of its own religion, 
from falling under the dominion of more powerful 
neighboring nations, except the special protection 
of God? and what but this could guard them 
from the plagues and famines to which their 
neighbors were liable? If the predictions of 
Moses were not inspired, they assume a principle 
which mere human wisdom and policy never 
takes into its calculations, — that of the connection 
of the national prosperity of a people, inseparably 
and infallibly, with obedience to their holy 
writings ; and because they assume that singular 
principle, the conclusion is in favor of their in- 
spiration. For let us turn to the facts of the 
case. The sacred books of the Jews are histori- 
cal as well as prophetic. The history too is dis- 
tinct from the prophecy : it is often written by 
other authors ; and there is no mark at all of any 
designed accommodation of the one to the other. 
The singular simplicity of the historic narrative 
disproves this, as well as the circumstance that 
a great part of it as recorded in the Old Testa- 
ment is a transcript of their public records. 
Consult then this history, and in every instance 
of singular calamity wo sec a previous departure 
from the law ol' Moses: the otic following the 
other, almost with the regularity and certainty 
of natural effects and causes! In this the pre- 
dictions of Moses and the prophets are Btrikblglj 



108 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



accomplished ; and a more than human foresight 
is proved. 

Let us look farther into the detail of these 
threatened punishments. Besides the ordinary 
inflictions of failing harvests, and severe diseases 
in their own country, they were, according to the 
prophecies of Moses. Deut. xxviii., to be "scat- 
tered among all people, from the one end of the earth 
even to the other; 33 and where is the trading 
nation in which they are not, in Asia, Africa, and 
Europe ? Many are even to be found in the 
TTest Indies, and in the commercial parts of 
America. Who could foresee this but God; 
especially when their singular preservation as a 
distinct people, a solitary instance in the history 
of nations, is also implied I 1 They were to find 
"no ease" among these nations; and the almost 
constant and long-continued persecutions, rob- 
beries, and murder of Jews, not only in ancient 
nations, but especially among Christian nations 
of the middle ages, and in the Mohammedan 
states to this day, are in wonderful accomplish- 
ment of this. They were to be "a proverb and 
a by-icord among all nations," which has been in 
every place fulfilled, but was surely above human 
intelligence to foresee; and "the stranger that is 
within thee shall get above thee very high, and thou 
shalt come very low." Por a comment on this, let 
the conduct of the "stranger" Turks and others, 
who inhabit Palestine, towards the Jews who 
remain there, be recollected, — the one party is 
indeed "verg high," and the other ' very low." 
Other parts of this singular chapter present 
equally striking predictions, uttered more than 
three thousand years ago, as remarkably accom- 
plished ; but there are some passages in it, which 
refer in terms so particular to a then distant 
event, the utter subversion of their polity and 
nation by the Romans, as to demonstrate in the 
most unequivocal manner the prescience of Him 
to whom all events, the most contingent, minute, 
and distant, are known with absolute certainty. 
That the Romans are intended, in verse 49, by 
the nation brought from "the end of the earth," 
distinguished by their well-known ensign, "the 
eagle," and by their fierce and cruel disposition, 
is exceedingly probable ; and it is remarkable, 
that the account which Moses selves of the horrors 



i - They have been dispersed among all countries. They 
have no common tie of locality or government to keep 
them together. All the ordinary principles of assimilation, 
which make law, and religion, and manners so much a 
matter of geography, are in their instance suspended. 
And, in exception to every thing which history has recorded 
of the revolutions of the species, we see in this wonderful 
race a vigorous principle of identity, which has remained 
in undiminished force for nearly two thousand years, and 
still pervades every shred and fragment of their widely 
scattered population/-' — Chalmers's Evidences. 



of the "siege" of which he speaks, is exactly 
paralleled by those well-known passages in Jose- 
phus in which he describes the siege of Jerusa- 
lem by the Roman army. The last verse of the 
chapter seems indeed to fix the reference of the 
foregoing passages to the final destruction of the 
nation by the Romans, and at the same time con- 
tains a prediction, the accomplishment of which 
cannot possibly be ascribed to accident : "And 
the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again icith 
ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou 
shalt see it no more again; and there ye shall be 
sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, 
and no man shall buy you." On this Dr. Hales 
remarks, on the authority of their own national 
historian, Josephus, "Of the captives taken at 
the siege of Jerusalem, above seventeen years 
of age, some were sent to Egypt in chains, the 
greater part were distributed through the pro- 
vinces to be destroyed in the theatres, by the 
sword, and by wild beasts : the rest under seven- 
teen were sold for slaves, and that for a trifling 
sum, on account of the numbers to be sold, and 
the scarcity of buyers : so that at length the 
prophecy of Moses was fulfilled — 'and no man 
shall bug.' The part that were reserved to grace 
the triumph of Yespasian, were probably trans- 
ported to Italy iu 'ships' or by sea, to avoid a 
prodigious land journey thither through Asia 
and Greece, — a circumstance which distinguished 
this invasion and captivity from the preceding by 
the Assyrians and Babylonians. In the ensuing 
rebellion, a part of the captives were sent by sea 
to Egypt, and several of the ships were wrecked 
on the coast." 

Thus, at a distance of fifteen centuries, were 
these contingent circumstances accurately re- 
corded by the prophetic spirit of Moses — the 
taking of innumerable Jews captive — their trans- 
port to Egypt — their being sold till the markets 
for slaves were glutted, and no more buyers were 
found, and embarked on board vessels, either to 
grace the triumph of their conqueror, or to find 
a market in different maritime ports. Is it pos- 
sible that these numerous and minute circum- 
stances can be referred to either happy con- 
jectures or human foresight? 

But Moses and other prophets agree that, after 
all their captivities and dispersions, the Jews 
shall be again restored to their own land. This 
was, as we have said, in one instance accom- 
plished in their restoration by Cyrus and his 
successors : after which they again became a 
considerable state. But who could foretell that, 
but He who determines the events of the world 
by his power and wisdom ? Jeremiah fixes the 
duration of the captivity to seventy years : he 
did that so unequivocally, that the Jews in Baby- 



OH. XVII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



109 



Ion, when the time approached, began to prepare 
for the event. But there was nothing in the 
circumstances of the Babylonian empire when 
the prediction was uttered, to warrant the hope, 
much less to support a confident conjecture. 
Could the subversion of that powerful empire by 
a then obscure people, the circumstance which 
broke the bondage of the Jews, have been fore- 
seen by man ? or when we consider the event as 
fulfilling so distinct a prophecy, can it be resolved 
into imaginative interpretation ? A future restor- 
ation however awaits this people, and will be to 
the world a glorious demonstration of the truth 
of prophecy. This being future, we cannot 
argue upon it. Three things are however cer- 
tain : — the Jews themselves expect it : they are 
preserved by the providence of God a distinct peo- 
ple for their country ; and their country, which in 
fact is possessed by no one, is preserved for them. 
Without noticing numerous prophecies respect- 
ing ancient nations and cities, 1 the wonderful and 
exact accomplishment of which has been pointed 
out by various writers, and which afford numer- 

1 No work has exhibited in so pleasing and comprehen- 
sive a manner the fulfilment of the leading prophecies of 
Scripture, and especially of the Old Testament, as Bishop 
Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies; and the perusal 
of it may be earnestly recommended, especially to the 
young. His illustrations of the prophecies respecting 
ancient Babylon are exceedingly interesting and satisfac- 
tory, and still further proofs of the wonderfully exact 
accomplishment of those prophecies may be seen in a 
highly interesting Memoir on the Ruins of Babylon, by 
Claudius J. Rich, published in 1815. Immense ruins were 
visited by him near the supposed site of ancient Babylon, 
which probably are, though the matter cannot be certainly 
ascertained, the remains of that astonishing city, now 
indeed " sivept with the besom of destruction." He tells us, 
too, that the neighborhood is to the present a habitation 
only for birds and beasts of prey : that the dens of lions, 
with their slaughtered victims, are to be seen in many 
places; and that most of the cavities are occupied with 
bats and owls. It is, therefore, impossible to reflect with- 
out awe upon the passage of Isaiah, written during the 
prosperity of Babylon, wherein he says, "The wild beasts 
of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full 
of doleful creatures, and owls shall dwell thcro, and satyrs 
shall danco there." The present ruins of that city also de- 
monstrate that the course of the Euphrates has been 
changed, probably in consequence of tho channel formed 
by Cyrus; and tho yielding nature of the soil demonstrates 
that such an operation could have been porformed by a 
large army with great facility and dispatch. 

The ruins examined by Mr. Rich bear testimony to tho 
immense extent of the city as described by ancient authors. 
Vast masses of masonry, of both burnt and unburnt brick 
and bitumen, were observed in various excavations in these 
huge mountains of ruins, which are separated from each 
other by several miles. One is called by the Arabs, Birs 
Niwroud: anotherthe Ewyor Palace; and a, third, which 
gome have thought to U- tho ruins of the tower of Bolus, is 
called by the oatives MugeMbi, ovmamnraD, which expreB- 
111 ' ;i ' ■• ometimes applied to the i inds of the 

Kasr. 

[Tho recent discoveries of Layard, Rawlinson, and others, 
flood oi light on this subject.— Emion.] 



ous eminent instances of the prescience of con- 
tingent and improbable events, whose evidence 
is so overwhelming, that, as in the case of the 
illustrious prophecies of Daniel, unbelievers have 
been obliged to resort to the subterfuge of assert- 
ing, in opposition to the most direct proofs, that 
the prophecies were written after the events, we 
shall close our instances by adverting to the pro- 
phecies respecting the Messiah, — the great end 
and object of the prophetic dispensation. Of 
these not a solitary instance, or two, of an equiv- 
ocal kind, and expressed only in figurative or 
symbolic language, are to be adduced ; but up- 
wards of one hundred predictions, generally of 
very clear and explicit meaning, and each refer- 
ring to some different circumstance connected 
with the appearing of Christ, his person, history, 
and his ministry, have been selected by divines, 
exclusive of typical and allusive predictions, 2 and 
those which in an ultimate and remote sense are 
believed to terminate in him. How are all these 
to be disposed of, if the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures which contain them be denied ? That these 
predictions are in books written many ages before 
the birth of our Saviour, is certain — the testi- 
mony of the Jews who reject Christ, amply 
proves this. That no interpolations have taken 
place to accommodate them to him, is proved by 
the same predictions being found in the copies 
which are in the hands of the Jews, and which 
have descended to them from before the Chris- 
tian era. On the other hand, the history of 
Jesus answers to these predictions, and exhibits 
their exact accomplishment. The Messiah was 
to be of the seed of David — born in Bethlehem — 
born of a virgin — an incarnation of Deity, God 
with us, — an eminent but unsuccessful teacher : 
he was to open the eyes of the blind, heal the 
lame and sick, and raise the dead : he was to be 
despised and rejected by his own countrymen: 
to be arraigned on false charges, denied justice, 
and condemned to a violent death: he was to 
rise from the dead, ascend to the right hand 
of God, and there being invested with power and 
authority, he was to punish his enemies, and 
establish his own spiritual kingdom, which shall 
never end. We do not enter into more minute 
predictions, for the argument is irresistible when 
founded on these alone ; and wo may assort that 
no man, or number of men, could possibly have 
made such conjectures. Considered in them- 
selves, this is impossible. What rational man, 
or number of rational men, could now be found 
to hazard a conjecture that an incarnation ol' 
Deity would occur in any given place and time — 
that this Divine Person should teach wisdom. 

» See note, p. 104. 



110 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



work miracles, be unjustly put to death, rise 
again, and establish his religion? These are 
thoughts which never enter into the minds of 
men, because they are suggested by no experi- 
ence, and by no probability arising out of the 
usual course of human affairs : and yet if the 
prophets were not inspired, it would have been 
as impossible for them to have conceived such 
expectations, as for us ; and indeed much more 
so, seeing we are now familiar with a religion 
which asserts that such events have once occur- 
red. If, then, such events lay beyond not only 
human foresight, but even human thought, they 
can only be referred to inspiration. But the 
case does not close here. How shall we account, 
in the next place, for these circumstances all 
having met, strange as they are, in one person, 
and in one only among all the millions of men 
who have been born of woman, — and that person 
Jesus of Nazareth ? He was of the house and 
lineage of David — he was born, and that by a 
singular event, in Bethlehem — he professed to be 
"God with us," and wrought miracles to substan- 
tiate his claim. At his word or touch, the "eyes 
of the blind were opened," "the lame leaped as a 
hart" the dumb spake, the sick were healed, and 
the dead lived, as the prophets had foretold. 
Of the wisdom of his teaching, his recorded dis- 
courses bear witness. His rejection and unjust 
death by his countrymen are matters of historic 
fact : his resurrection and ascension stand upon 
the lofty evidences which have been already 
adduced: the destruction of the Jewish nation, 
according to his own predictions, followed as 
the proof of the terror of his offended majesty: 
and his "kingdom" among men continues to this 
day. There is no possible means of evading the 
evidence of the fulfilment of these predictions 
in the person of our Lord, unless it could be 
shown that Jesus and his disciples, by some kind 
of concert, made the events of his life and death 
to correspond with the prophecies, in order to 
substantiate his claim to the Messiahship. Xo 
infidel has ever been so absurd as to hazard this 
opinion, except Lord Bolingbroke : and his obser- 
vations may be taken as a most triumphant proof 
of the force of this evidence from prophecy, when 
a hypothesis so extravagant was resorted to by 
an acute mind, in order to evade it. This noble 
writer asserts that Jesus Christ brought on his 
own death by a series of wilful and preconcerted 
measures, merely to give his disciples the tri- 
umph of an appeal to the old prophecies ! But 
this hypothesis does not reach the case : and to 
have succeeded, he ought to have shown that 
our Lord preconcerted his descent from David — 
his being born of a virgin — his birth at Bethle- 
hem — and his wonderful endowments of elo- 



[PAST I. 

quence and wisdom: that by some means or 
other he wilfully made the Jews ungrateful to 
hi m who healed their sick and cleansed their 
lepers ; and that he not only contrived his own 
death, but his resurrection, and his ascension 
also, and the spread of his religion in opposition 
to human opinion and human power, in order to 
give his disciples the triumph of an appeal to the 
prophecies ! These subterfuges of infidels con- 
cede the point, and show that the truth cannot 
be denied but by doing the utmost violence to the 
understanding. 

That wonderful series of particular prophecies 
respecting our Lord, contained in Isaiah liii., 

| will illustrate the foregoing observations, and 

' may properly close this chapter. 

To this prophecy it cannot be objected that its 
language is symbolic, or that in more than a few 
beautiful metaphors, easily understood, it is 
even figurative : its style is that of narrative : it 
is also entire in itself, and unmixed with any 
other subject; and it evidently refers to one 
single person. So the ancient Jews understood 
it, and applied it to Messiah; and though the 
modern Jews, in order to evade its force in the 
argument with Christians, allege that it describes 
the sufferings of their nation, and not of an indi- 
vidual, the objection is refuted by the terms of 
the prophecy itself. The Jewish people cannot 
be the sufferer, because he was to bear their griefs, 
to carry their sorrows, and to be wounded for 
their transgressions. "He hath borne our griefs 

! and carried ora sorroics," etc. : so that the per- 
son of the sufferer is clearly distinguished from 
the Jewish nation. Besides which, his death and 
burial are spoken of, and his sufferings are repre- 
sented (verse 12) as voluntary: which in no 

' sense can apply to the Jews. "Of himself, or of 

: some other man," therefore, as the Ethiopian 
eunuch rightly conceived, the prophet must have 

! spoken. To some individual it must be applied; 

; to none but to our Lord can it be applied : and 
applied to him, the prophecy is converted into 
history itself. The prophet declares that his 
advent and works would be a revealing of "the 
arm of the Lord," — a singular display of Divine 
power and goodness ; and yet, that a blind and 
incredulous people would not believe "the report." 
Appearing in a low and humble condition, and 
not, as they expected their Messiah, in the pomp 
of eastern monarchy, his want of "comeliness" 
and "desirableness" in the eyes of his country- 
men, and his rejection by them, are explicitly 
stated — "He xcas despised, and we esteemed him 
not." He is further described as "a man of 
sorroics, and acquainted with griefs :" yet his suf- 
ferings were considered by the Jews as judicial — 
a legal punishment, as they contend to this day, 



CH. XVIII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



Ill 



for his endeavoring to seduce men from the law, 
and for which they had the warrant of God him- 
self, in his commands by Moses, that such se- 
ducers should be put to death . With what exact- 
ness are these sentiments of the Jews marked in 
the prophecy ! We quote from the translation 
of Bishop Lowth : 

" Yet we thought him judicially stricken, 
Smitten of God, and afflicted." 

Christ himself and his apostles uniformly repre- 
sented his death as vicarious and propitiatory ; 
and this is predicted and confirmed, so to speak, 
by the evidence of this prophecy. 

" But he was wounded for our transgressions, 
He was smitten for our iniquities : 
The chastisement by which our peace is effected, was laid 

upon him; 
And by his bruises we are healed. 
We all of us like sheep have strayed : 
We have turned aside, every one to his own way ; 
And Jehovah hath made to light upon him the iniquity 

of us all. 
It was exacted and he was made answerable." 

Who can read the next passage without think- 
ing of Jesus before the council of the Jews, and 
the judgment-seat of Pilate ? 

" As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, 
And as a sheep before her shearers 
Is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. 
By an oppressive judgment he was taken off." 

The very circumstances of his burial are 
given: — 

"And his grave was appointed with the wicked, 
But with the rich man was his tomb." 

Yet, though thus laid in the grave, the eye of 
the prophet beholds his resurrection, " the joy 
set before him," and into which he entered: the 
distribution of spiritual blessings to his people, 
and his spiritual conquest of the nations of 
the earth, notwithstanding the opposition of "the 
mighty;" and he enumerates these particulars 
with a plainness so wonderful, that, by merely 
an alteration of the tenses of the verbs, the 
whole might bo converted into an abridged view 
of what has occurred, and is now occurring 
under the Christian dispensation, in the further- 
ance of human salvation : — 

" If his soul shall mako a propitiatory sacrifice, 
He shall see a seed, which shall prolong their days, 
And the gracious purpose of Jehovah shall prosper in his 

bands. 
Of the travail of his soul ho shall seo (the fruit) and bo 

satisfied: 
By the knowledge of him shall my servant justify 

manyj 
For tin' punishment of their Iniquities he simii bear. 
Therefore will I distribute to him the many for his 

portion : 
Ami the mighty people shall ]!<■ share for iiis spoil; ' I 



Because he poured his soul out unto death ; 
And was numbered with the transgressors; 
And he bore the sin of many, 
And made intercession for the transgressors." 

To all these predictions the words of a modern 
writer are applicable: "Let now the infidel, or 
the skeptical reader, meditate thoroughly and 
soberly upon these predictions. The priority 
of the records to the events admits of no ques- 
tion. The completion is obvious to every 
competent inquirer. Here then are facts. We 
are called upon to account for these facts on 
rational and adequate principles. Is human 
foresight equal to the task? Enthusiasm? Con- 
jecture? Chance? Political contrivance? If 
none of these, neither can any other principle 
that may be devised by man's sagacity account 
for the facts ; then, true philosophy, as well 
as true religion, will ascribe them to the inspi- 
ration of the Almighty. Every effect must have 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE FROM PROPHECY 
CONSIDERED. 

Besides the objections which have been anti- 
cipated and answered in the last chapter, others 
have been made to the argument from prophecy, 
which, though exceedingly futile, ought to re- 
ceive a cursory notice, lest any should think them 
of greater importance. 

It has been objected, as to some of the pro- 
phecies, that they were written after the event ; 
as, for instance, the prophecy of Isaiah in 
which the name of Cyrus is found, and the pro- 
phecies of Daniel. This allegation, standing as 
it does upon no evidence whatever, and being 
indeed in opposition to contrary proof, shows 
the hopelessness of the cause of infidelity, and 
affords a lofty triumph to the evidence of pro- 
phecy. For the objector does in fact acknow- 
ledge that these predictions are not obscure; 
that the event exactly corresponded with them ; 
and that they were beyond human conjecture. 
Without entering into those questions respecting 
the date of the books of Isaiah and Daniel, 
which properly belong to works on tho canon 
of Scripture, we may observe, that the authors 
of this objection assert, but without giving tho 
least proof, that Isaiah wrote his propheoies in 
order to flatter Cyrus, and that the book oi' 



i Simpson's Key to (he Prophecies, See also a targe collec- 
tion of prophecies with their fulfilment in the Appendix 
to vol. i. of HORNB'fl Introduction to the &'ri]>tur<s. 



112 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART 



Daniel was composed about the reign of Antio- 
CHUS Epiphanes. It is therefore admitted that 
both were extant, and in their present form, 
before the time of the Christian era ; bnt if so, 
"what end, we ask, is answered by the objection? 
The Scriptures, as received by the Jews, were 
verified by the sentence of our Lord and his 
apostles ; and unless their inspiration can be 
disproved, the objection in question is a mere 
cavil. Before it can have any weight, the whole 
mass of evidence which supports the mission 
and Divine authority of our Saviour and the 
apostles must be overthrown ; and not till then 
can it in strictness of reasoning be maintained. 
But, not to insist on this, the assertion respect- 
ing Isaiah is opposed to positive testimony: 
the testimony of the prophet himself, who 
states that he lived "in the days' of Uzziah, 
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judahf 
and the testimony of an independent witness, 
the author of the Second Book of Kings, in the 
twentieth chapter of which book Isaiah is brought 
forward in connection with a public event of 
the Jewish history — the dangerous sickness and 
recovery of the King Hezekiah. The proof is 
then as decisive as the public records of a king- 
dom can make it, that Isaiah wrote more than a 
hundred years before the birth of Cyrus. 1 

The time when Daniel lived and wrote is 
bound up in like manner with public history — 
and that not only of the Jews, but of the Baby- 
lonians and Persians ; and could not be ante- 
dated so as to impose upon the Jews, who 
received the book which bears his name into their 
canon, as the production of the same Daniel who 
had filled exalted stations in the courts of Nebu- 
chadnezzar and his successors. In favor of a 
later date being assigned to the book of Daniel, 
it has been said, that it has many Greek terms, 
and that it was not translated by the LXX., the 
translation now inserted in the Septuagint being 
by Theodotian. With respect to the Greek 
terms, they are chiefly found in the names of the 
musical instruments ; and the Greeks acknow- 



1 "But if you will persevere in believing that the pro- 
phecy concerning Cyrus was written after the event, 
peruse the burden of Babylon : was that also written after 
the event ? "Were the Medes then stirred up against Baby- 
lon ? "Was Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms, the beauty 
of the Chaldees, then overthrown, and become as Sodom 
and Gomorrah? "Was it then uninhabited? Was it then 
neither fit for the Arabian's tent nor the shepherd's fold ? 
Did the wild beasts of the desert then lie there ? Did the 
wild beasts of the islands then cry in their desolate houses, 
and dragons in their pleasant places? Were Nebuchad- 
nezzar and Belshazzar, the son and the grandson, then cut 
off? Was Babylon then become a possession of the bittern 
and pools of water ? "Was it then swept with the besom of 
destruction, so swept that the world knows not now where 
to find it?" — Bishop "Watsox's Apology. 



ledge that they derived their music from the 
eastern nations. With respect to the second 
objection, it is unfounded. The authors of the 
Septuagint did translate the book of Daniel, 
and their version is cited by Clemens Romanus, 
Justin Martyr, and many of the ancient 
fathers: it occupied a column of the Hexapla 
of Origen, and is quoted by Jerome. The 
present Greek version by Theodotian inserted in 
the Septuagint was made in the second century, 
and preferred as being more conformable to the 
original. The repudiated version was published 
some years ago from an ancient MS. discovered 
at Rome. 2 

The opponents of Scripture are fond of the 
attempt to lower the dignity and authority of 
the sacred prophecies by comparing them to the 
heathen oracles. The absolute contrast be- 
tween them has already been pointed out ; ( Vide 
chapter xvi. ;) but a few additional observations 
may not be useless. 

Of the innumerable oracles which were esta- 
blished and consulted by the ancient heathen, 
the most celebrated was the Delphic; and we 
may, therefore, for the purpose of exhibiting the 
contrast more perfectly between the Pythian 
oracle and the prophecies of Scripture, confine 
our remarks to that. 

The first great distinction lies in this, that 
none of the predictions ever uttered by the Del- 
phic oracle went deep into futurity. They relate 
to events on the eve of taking place, and whose 
preparatory circumstances were known. There 
was not even the pretence of foresight to the dis- 
tance of a few years ; though had it been a 
hundred years, even that were a very limited 
period to the eye of inspired prophets, who 
looked through the course of succeeding ages, 
and gave proof by the very sweep and compass 
of their predictions, that they were under the 
inspirations of Him to whom "a day is as a 
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 

A second contrast lies in the ambiguity of 
the responses. The prophecies of Scripture are 
sometimes obscure, though this does not apply 
to the most eminent of those which have been 
most signally fulfilled, as we have already seen ; 
but they never equivocate. For this the Pythian 
oracle was notorious. Historians relate that 

2 Porphyry, in hi3 books against the Christian religion, 
was the first to attack the prophecies of Daniel ; and in 
modern times, Collixs, in his " Scheme of Literal Pro- 
phecy," bent all his force against a book so pregnant with 
proofs of the truth of Christianity; and the inspiration of 
ancient prophecy. By two learned opponents his eleven 
objections were most satisfactorily refuted, and shown to 
be mere cavils — by Bishop Chandler in his " Vindication" 
of his " Defence of Christianity,"' and by Dr. Sam. Chandler, 
in his " Vindication of Daniel's Prophecies." 



CH. XVIII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



113 



Crcesus, who had expended large sums upon 
the agents of this delusion, was tricked by an 
equivocation ; through which, interpreting the 
response most favorably for himself, he was in- 
duced to make an unsuccessful war on Cyrus. 
In his subsequent captivity he repeatedly re- 
proached the oracle, and charged it with false- 
hood. The response delivered to Pyrrhus was 
of the same kind ; and was so expressed as to be 
true, whether Pyrrhus conquered the Komans or 
the Romans Pyrrhus. Many other instances of 
the same kind are given; not to mention the 
trifling, and even bantering and jocose oracles, 
which were sometimes pronounced. 1 

The venality, wealth, and servility of the 
Delphic oracle, present another contrast to the 
poverty and disinterestedness of the Jewish pro- 
phets, whom no gifts could bribe, and no power 
awe in the discharge of their duty. Demosthe- 
nes, in one of his speeches to the Athenians, 
publicly charges this oracle with being "gained 
over to the interests of King Philip;" and the 
Greek historians give other instances in which it 
had been corrupted by money, and the pro- 
phetess sometimes deposed for bribery, sometimes 
for lewdness. 

Neither threats nor persecutions had any in- 
fluence with the Jewish prophets ; but it would 
seem that this celebrated oracle of Apollo was 
not even proof against raillery. At first it 
gave its answers in verse ; but the Epicureans, 
Cynics, and others laughing so much at the 
poorness of the versification, it fell at length into 
prose. "It was surprising," said these philo- 
sophic wits, "that Apollo, the god of poetry, 
should be a much worse poet than Homer, whom 
he himself had inspired." Plutarch considers 
this as a principal cause of the declension of the 
oracle of Delphos. Doubtless it had declined 
much in credit in his day ; and the further spread 
of Christianity completed its ruin. 

Can then the prophecies of Scripture be paral- 
leled with these dark, and venal, and delusive 
oracles, without impiety ? and could any higher 



1 Eusebius haa preserved some fragments of a philoso- 
pher called (Enomaus; who, out of resentment for his 
having been so often fooled by the oracles, wrote an ample 
confutation of all their impertinences : " When wo come to 
consult thee," says he to Apollo, "if thou scest what is in 
futurity, why dost thou use expressions that will not be 
understood ? If thou dost, thou takest pleasure in abusing 
us ; if thou dost not, bo informed of us, and loarn to spoak 
more clearly. I tell thee, that if thou intendost an equi- 
voque, the Greek word whoroby thou affirmodst that Croesus 
should overthrow a groat empiro was ill choson ; and that 
it could signify nothing but Croesus's conquering Cyrus. 
If tilings must nocossarily come to pass, why dost thou 
amuse us with thy ambiguities? What dost thou, wretch 
as thou art, at Delphi, employed in muttering idle pro- 
phecies!" 



8 



honor be wished for the Jewish prophets, than 
the comparison into which they are thus brought 
with the agents of paganism at Delphos and 
other places ? They had recourse to no smooth 
speeches, no compliances with the tempers and 
prejudices of men. They concealed no truth 
which they were commissioned to declare, how- 
ever displeasing to their nation and hazardous to 
themselves. They required no caves, or secret 
places of temples, from which to utter their 
messages ; and those who consulted them were 
not practiced upon by the bewildering ceremonies 
imposed upon inquirers at Delphos. They pro- 
phesied in streets, and courts, and palaces, and 
in the midst of large assemblies. Their predic- 
tions had a clear, determinate, and consistent 
sense ; and they described future events with so 
many particularities of time and place, as made 
it scarcely possible that they should be misunder- 
stood or misapplied. 

Pure and elevated as was the character of the 
Jewish prophets, the hardihood of infidelity has 
attempted to asperse their character ; because it 
appears from Scripture story that there were 
false prophets and bad men who bore that name. 

Balaam is instanced, though not a Jewish pro- 
phet ; but that he was always a bad man, wants 
proof. The probability is, that his virtue was 
overcome by the offers of Balak ; and the pro- 
phetic spirit was not taken away from him, 
because there was an evident design on the part 
of God to make his favor to Israel more conspi- 
cuous, by obliging a reluctant prophet to bless 
when he would have cursed, and that in the very 
presence of a hostile king. When that work 
was done, Balaam was consigned to his proper 
punishment. 

With respect to the Jewish false prophets, it is 
a singular proceeding to condemn the true ones 
for their sake, and to argue that because bad 
men assumed their functions, and imitated their 
manner, for corrupt purposes, the universally 
received prophets of the nation, — men who, from 
the proofs they gave of their inspiration, had 
their commission acknowledged even by those 
who hated them, and their writings received into 
the Jewish canon, — were bad men also. Let the 
characters of Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, 
Nathan, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 2 Daniel, and the 
authors of the other prophetical books, be con- 
sidered; and how true are the words of the 
apostle, that they were "holy men of old," as 
well as that they were "moved by the. Jfoly 

2 A weak attempt has been made by some Infidel writers 
to fasten a charge of falsehood on Jeremiah, In the case of 

his confidential interview with King Zeilekiah. A satis- 
factory refutation is given by Bishop Watson in his ansu vv 
to Paine, Letter VI. 



114 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



Ghost!" That the prophets who prophesied 
" smooth things" were never considered as true 
prophets, except for a time by a few who wished 
to have their hopes flattered, is plain from this — 
none of their writings were preserved by the 
Jews. Their predictions would not abound in 
reproofs and threatenings, like those of Isaiah 
and Jeremiah ; and yet the words of those pro- 
phets who were personally most displeasing to 
the Jews of the age in which they lived, have 
been preserved, while every flattering prophecy 
was suffered to fall into oblivion almost as soon 
as it was uttered. Can we have a more decisive 
proof than this that the false prophets were a 
perfectly distinct class of men, — the venal imi- 
tators of these '■'■holy men of old" but who never 
gave, even to those most disposed to listen to 
their delusive prophecies, a satisfactory proof of 
their prophetic commission ? 

Attempts have been made to show that a few 
of the prophecies of Scripture have failed. The 
following are the principal instances : — 

It has been said that a false promise was made 
to Abraham, when it was promised to him that 
his descendants should possess the territory 
which lies between the Euphrates and the river 
of Egypt. But this objection is clearly made in 
ignorance of the Scriptures ; for the fact is that 
David conquered that territory, and that the 
dominions of Solomon were thus extended. ( Vide 
2 Sam. viii. : 1 Chron. xviii.) 

Voltaire objects, that the prophets made pro- 
mises to the Jews of the most unbounded riches, 
dominion, and influence; insomuch that they 
could only have been accomplished by their con- 
quering or proselyting the entire of the habitable 
globe. On the contrary, he says, they have lost 
their possessions instead of obtaining either 
property or power, and therefore the prophecies 
are false. 

The case is here unfairly stated. The prophets 
never made such exaggerated promises. They 
predict many spiritual blessings to be bestowed 
in the times of Messiah, under figures drawn 
from worldly opulence and power, the figurative 
language of which no attentive reader can mis- 
take. They also promise many civil advantages, 
but only conditionally on the obedience of the 
nation; and they speak in high terms of the 
state of the Jewish nation upon its final restora- 
tion, for which objectors must wait before they 
can determine the predictions to be false. But 
did not Voltaire know that the loss of their own 
country by the Jews, of which he speaks, was 
predicted in the clearest manner ? and would he 
not have seen, had he not been blinded by his 
prejudices, that his very objection acknowledges 
the truth of prophecy? The promises of the 



prophets have not been falsified in the instance 
given, but their threats have been signally ful- 
filled. 

Paine, following preceding writers of the same 
sentiments, asserts the prophecy of Isaiah to 
Ahaz not to have been verified by the event, and 
is thus answered by Bishop Watson : (Apology, 
Letter V. :) " The prophecy is quoted by you to 
prove, and it is the only instance you produce, 
that Isaiah was <a lying prophet and impostor.' 
Now I maintain that this very instance proves 
that he was a true prophet, and no impostor. 
The history of the prophecy, as delivered in the 
seventh chapter, is this: Rezin, king of Syria, 
and Pekah, king of Israel, made war upon Ahaz, 
king of Judah ; not merely, or perhaps not at all 
for the sake of plunder, or the conquest of terri- 
tory, but with a declared purpose of making an 
entire revolution in the government of Judah, of 
destroying the royal house of David, and of 
placing another family on the throne. Their 
purpose is thus expressed : 'Let us go up against 
Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach 
therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, 
even the son of Tabeal.' Now what did the 
Lord commission Isaiah to say to Ahaz ? Did he 
commission him to say, The kings shall not vex 
thee ? No. The kings shall not conquer thee ? 
No. The kings shall not succeed against thee ? 
No. He commissioned him to say — 'It (the 
purpose of the two kings) shall not stand, neither 
shall it come to pass.' I demand — Did it stand, 
did it come to pass ? Was any revolution 
effected? Was the royal house of David de- 
throned and destroyed ? Was Tabeal ever made 
king of Judah? No. The prophecy was per- 
fectly accomplished. You say, ' Instead of these 
two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, 
they succeeded: Ahaz was defeated and de- 
stroyed.' I deny the fact: Ahaz was defeated, 
but not destroyed ; and even the ' two hundred 
thousand women, and sons and daughters,' whom 
you represent as carried into captivity, were not 
carried into captivity: they were made captives, 
but they were not carried into captivity ; for the 
chief men of Samaria, being admonished by a 
prophet, would not suffer Pekah to bring the 
captives into the land, ' They rose up, and took 
the captives, and with the spoil clothed all that 
were naked among them, and arrayed them and 
shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, 
and anointed them, and carried all the feeble 
of them upon asses, (some humanity, you see, 
among those Israelites, whom you everywhere 
represent as barbarous brutes,) and brought 
them to Jericho, the city of palm trees, to their 
brethren.' — 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. The kings did 
fail in their attempt: their attempt was to destroy 



CH. 



XVIII.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



11.5 



the house of David, and to make a revolution ; 
but they made no revolution : they did not destroy 
the house of David, for Ahaz slept with his 
fathers ; and Hezekiah, his son, of the house of 
David, reigned in his stead." 

A similar attempt is made by the same writer 
to fix a charge of false vaticination upon Jere- 
miah, and is thus answered by the Bishop of 
Llandaff: "'In the thirty-fourth chapter is a 
prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah, in these 
words, (verse 2:) Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I 
will give this city into the hands of the king of 
Babylon, and will burn it with fire ; and thou shalt 
not escape out of his hand, but thou shalt surely be 
taken, and delivered into his hand I and thine eyes 
shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he 
shall speak vjith thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt 
go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord, 
Zedekiah king of Judah : thus saith the Lord, Thou 
shalt not die by the sword, but thou shalt die in 
peace ; and xoith the burnings of thy fathers, the 
former kings that were before thee, so shall they 
burn odors for the ,, and will lament thee, saying, 
Ah, lord! for L have pronounced the word, saith 
the Lord. Now, instead of Zedekiah beholding 
the eyes of the king of Babylon, and speaking 
with him mouth to mouth, and dying in peace, 
and with the burnings of odors at the funeral of 
his fathers, (as Jeremiah hath declared the Lord 
himself had pronounced,) the reverse, according 
to the fifty-second chapter, was the case: it is 
there stated, (verse 10,) that the king of Babylon 
slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes ; then he 
put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in 
chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in 
prison till the day of his death. What can we say 
of these prophets, but that they are impostors 
and liars?' I can say this — that the prophecy 
you have produced was fulfilled in all its parts ; 
and what then shall be said of those who call 
Jeremiah a liar and an impostor ? Here then we 
are fairly at issue — you affirm that the prophecy 
was not fulfilled, and I affirm that it was fulfilled 
in all its parts. 'I will give this city into the 
hands of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn 
it with fire:' so says the prophet. What says 
the history ? ' They (the forces of the king of 
Babylon) burnt the house of God, and brake 
down the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt all the 
palaces thereof with fire.' — 2 Chron. xxxvi. 19. 
'Thou shalt not escape out of his hand, but thou 
shalt surely be taken and delivered into his hand:' 
so Bays the prophet. What says the history? 
'The men of war fled by night, and the king 
went the way toward the plain, and the army of 
theChaldees pursued after the king, and overtook 
him in the plains of Jericho; and all his army 
were scattered from him : so they took tho king, 



and brought him up to the king of Babylon, to 
Biblah.' — 2 Kings xxv. 5. The prophet goes on, 
' Thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of 
Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to 
mouth.' No pleasant circumstance this to Zede- 
kiah, who had provoked the king of Babylon by 
revolting from him. The history says, ' The king 
of Babylon gave judgment upon Zedekiah,' or, 
as it is more literally rendered from the Hebrew, 
' spake judgments with him at Biblah.' The pro- 
phet concludes this part with, ' And thou shalt 
go to Babylon:' the history says, 'The king of 
Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him 
to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of 
his death.' — Jer. lii. 11. 'Thou shalt not die by 
the sword.' He did not die by the sword, he did 
not fall in battle. 'But thou shalt die in peace.' 
He did die in peace — he neither expired on the 
rack nor on the scaffold — was neither strangled 
nor poisoned, no unusual fate of captive kings — 
he died peaceably in his bed, though that bed 
was in a prison. ' And with the burnings of thy 
fathers shall they burn odors before thee.' I 
cannot prove from the history that this part of 
the prophecy was accomplished, nor can you 
prove that it was not. The probability is, that 
it was accomplished ; and I have two reasons on 
which I ground this probability. Daniel, Shad- 
rach, Meshach, and Abednego, to say nothing of 
other Jews, were men of great authority in the 
court of the king of Babylon, before and after 
the commencement of the imprisonment of Zede- 
kiah; and Daniel continued in power till the 
subversion of the kingdom of Babylon by Cyrus. 
Now it seems to me to be very probable that 
Daniel, and the other great men of the Jews, 
would both have inclination to request, and in- 
fluence enough with the king of Babylon to 
obtain, permission to bury their deceased prince 
Zedekiah, after the manner of his fathers. But 
if there had been no Jews at Babylon of conse- 
quence enough to make such a request, still it is 
probable that the king of Babylon would have 
ordered the Jews to bury and lament their 
departed prince, after the manner of their coun- 
try. Monarchs, like other men, are conscious 
of the instability of human condition ; and when 
the pomp of war has ceased, when the insolence 
of conquest is abated, and the fury of resentment 
is subsided, they seldom fail to revere royalty 
even in its ruins, and grant, without reluotanoe, 
proper obsequies to the remains of captive kings." 
Ezekiel is assaulted in the same manner. "You 
quote," says the same writ or, "a passage from 
Ezekiel, in the twenty-ninth chapter, where, 
Bpeaking of Egypt, it is said: • No foot of man 
shall pass through it, nor foot of beast she: 
through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years :' 



116 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



this, you say, 'never came to pass, and con- 
sequently it is false, as all the books I have 
already reviewed are." Now that the invasion 
predicted did come to pass, we have, as Bishop 
Newton observes, 'the testimonies of Megas- 
thenes and Berosus, two heathen historians, who 
lived about 300 years before Christ ; one of 
whom affirms expressly that Nebuchadnezzar 
conquered the greater part of Africa ; and the 
other affirms it in effect in saying, that when 
Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his father, 
having settled his, affairs in Egypt, and committed 
the captives whom he took in Egypt to the care 
of some of his friends to bring them after him, 
he hasted directly to Babylon.' And if we 
had been possessed of no testimony in support 
of the prophecy, it would have been a hasty con- 
clusion that the prophecy never came to pass ; 
the history of Egypt, at so remote a period, 
being nowhere accurately and circumstantially 
related. I admit that no period can be pointed 
out from the age of Ezekiel to the present, in 
which there was no foot of man or beast to be 
seen for forty years in all Egypt ; but some think 
that only a part of Egypt is here spoken of; 1 
and surely you do not expect a literal accomplish- 
ment of a hyperbolical expression, denoting great 
desolation: importing that the trade of Egypt, 
which was carried on then, as at present, by 
caravans, by the foot of man and beast, should 
be annihilated." 

To this we may add, that the passage respect- 
ing the depopulation of Egypt stands in the 
midst of an extended prophecy, which has 
received the most marked fulfilment, and illus- 
trates, perhaps as strikingly as any thing which 
can be adduced, the cavilling spirit of infidelity, 
and proves that truth could never be the object 
of discussions thus conducted. Here is a passage 
which has some obscurity hanging over it. No 
one, however, can prove that it was not accom- 
plished, even so fully that the expressions might 
be used without violent hyperbole ; for the inva- 
sion of Nebuchadnezzar was one of the same 
sweeping and devastating character as his inva- 
sion and conquest of Judea ; and we know that 
the greater part of the inhabitants of that 
country we're destroyed or led captive, and that 
the land generally remained untilled for seventy 

1 The opinion of the bishop that not the whole of what 
is now called Egypt was intended in the prophecy, seems 
to derive confirmation from the following passages in 
Richardson's Travels in Egypt in 1817: — "The Delta, 
according to the tradition of the Jonians, is the only part 
that is, strictly speaking, entitled to be called Egypt, which 
is hieroglyphically represented by the figure of a heart, no 
unapt similitude." — "The principal places mentioned in 
our sacred writings, Zoan, Xoph, and Tahpanhe3, are all 
referable to the Delta. Probablv little of them remains." 



years, though not absolutely left without inhabit- 
ant. In the common language of men, Judea 
might be said not to be inhabited, so prodigious 
was the excision of its people ; and in such 
circumstances, from the total cessation of all 
former intercourse, commercial and otherwise, 
between the different parts of the kingdom, it 
might also, without exaggeration, be said that 
the foot of man and beast did not "pass through 
it :" their going from one part to another on 
business, or for worship at Jerusalem, being 
wholly suspended. Now, as we have no reason 
to suppose the Babylonian monarch to have been 
more merciful to Egypt than to Judea, the same 
expression, in a popular sense, might be used in 
respect of that country. Here, however, infidel- 
ity thought a cavil might be raised, and totally 
— may we not say wilfully ? — overlooked a pre- 
diction immediately following, which no human 
sagacity could conjecture, and against which it 
is in vain to urge that it was written after the 
event ; for the accomplishment of the prophecy 
runs on to the present day, and is as palpable 
and obvious as the past history and the present 
political state of that country: "Egypt shall be 
the basest of the kingdoms, neither shall it exalt itself 
any more above the nations — there shall be no more 
a prince of the land of Egypt." — Vide Ezek. xxix. 
and xxx. It is more than two thousand years 
since the prophecy was delivered, and Egypt has 
never recovered its liberties, but is to this day 
under the yoke of foreigners. It was conquered 
by the Babylonians ; then by the Persians ; and 
in succession passed under the dominion of the 
Macedonians, Romans, Saracens, Mamelucs, and 
Turks. No native prince of Egypt has ever restored 
his country to independence, and ascended the 
throne of his ancestors ; and the descendants of 
the ancient Egyptians are to this hour in the 
basest and most oppressed condition. Yet in 
Egypt the human mind had made some of its 
earliest and most auspicious efforts. The stupen- 
dous monuments of art and power, the ruins of 
which lie piled upon the banks of the Nile, or 
still defy the wastes of time, attest the vastness 
of the designs and the extent of the power of 
its princes. Egypt, too, was possessed of great 
natural advantages. Its situation was singularly 
calculated to protect it against foreign invasion ; 
while its great fertility promised to secure the 
country it enriched from poverty, baseness, and 
subjection. Yet, after a long course of grandeur, 
and in contradiction to its natural advantages, 
Ezekiel pronounced that the kingdom should be 
"the basest of all kingdoms," and that there 
should be "no more a prince of the land of Egypt." 
So the event has been, and so it remains ; and 
that this wonderful prophecy should be passed 



CH. XIX.] 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



117 



over by infidels in silence, while they select from 
it a passage which promised to give some color 
to objection, is deeply characteristic of the state 
of their minds. It is not from deficiency of evi- 
dence that the word of God is rejected by them. 
The evil is not the want of light, but the love of 
darkness. 

Much ridicule has been cast upon the prophets 
for those significant actions by which they illus- 
trated their predictions : as, when Jeremiah 
hides his linen girdle in a hole of the rock, and 
breaks a potter's vessel in the sight of the 
people; when Ezekiel weighs the hair of his 
head and beard in balances ; with many other 
instances familiar to those who read the Scrip- 
tures. But this ridicule can only proceed from 
ignorance. In the early ages of the world, the 
deficiency of language was often supplied by 
signs ; and when language was improved, " the 
practice remained," says Bishop Warburton, 
" after the necessity was over ; especially among 
the easterns, whose natural temperament inclined 
them to this mode of conversation. The charges, 
then, of absurdity and fanaticism brought against 
the prophets vanish of themselves. The absurdity 
of an action consists in its being extravagant and 
insignificative ; but use and a fixed application 
made the actions in question both sober and 
pertinent. The fanaticism of an action consists 
in fondness for such actions as are unusual, and 
for foreign modes of speech; but those of the pro- 
phets were idiomatic and familiar." We may add, 
that several of these actions were performed in 
vision ; and that, considering the genius of the 
people who were addressed, they were calculated 
strongly to excite their attention, the end for 
which they were adopted. 

Such are the principal objections which have 
been made to Scripture prophecy as the proof 
of Scripture truth. That they are so few and so 
feeble, when enemies so prying and capable have 
employed themselves with so much misplaced 
zeal to discover any vulnerable part, is the 
triumph of truth. Their futility has been 
pointed out ; and the whole weight of the preced- 
ing evidence in favor of the truth of the Old 
and New Testaments remains unmoved. We 
have, indeed, but glanced at a few of these 
extraordinary revelations of the future, for the 
sake, not of exhibiting the evidence of prophecy, 
which would require a distinct volume, but of 
explaining its nature and pointing out its force. 
To the prophecies of tho Old Testament the 
attentive inquirer will add those of our Lord and 
his apostles, which will appear not less extra- 
ordinary in themselves, nor less illustrious in 
their fulfilment, so far as they have received 
their accomplishment. Many prophecies, both 



of the Old and New Testament, evidently point 
to future times ; and this kind of evidence will 
consequently accumulate with the lapse of ages, 
and may be among the means by which Jews, 
Mohammedans, and pagans shall be turned to 
the Christian faith. At all events, prophecy even 
unfulfilled now answers an important end. It 
opens our prospect into the future ; and if the 
detail is obscure, yet, notwithstanding the mighty 
contest which is still going on between opposing 
powers and principles, we see how the struggle 
will terminate, and know, to use a prophetic 
phrase, that '■'■at evening time it shall be light." 



CHAPTER XIX. 

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH OF SCRIP- 
TURE — COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. 

The internal evidence of a revelation from 
God has been stated to be that which arises from 
the apparent excellence and beneficial tendency 
of the doctrine. ( Vide chap, ix.) This*, at least, 
is its chief characteristic, though other particulars 
may also be included in this species of proof, 
and shall be adduced. 

The reader will recollect the distinction made 
in the chapter just referred to between rational 
and authenticating evidence. It has been observed 
that there are some truths made known to us 
through the medium of a revelation from God, 
which, though in their nature undiscoverable by 
the unassisted faculties of man, yet, when once 
revealed, carry to our reason, so far as they are 
of a nature to be comprehended by it, the 
demonstration which accompanies truth of any 
other kind. (Vide chap, ix.) But it is only 
within the limit just mentioned that this posi- 
tion holds good ; for such truths only must be 
understood as are accompanied with reasons or 
rational proofs in the revelation itself, or which, 
when once suggested to the mind, direct its 
thoughts and observations to surrounding facts 
and circumstances, or to established truths to 
which they are capable of being compared, and 
by which they are confirmed. The internal evi- 
dence of the Holy Scriptures, therefore, as far 
as doctrine is concerned, is restrained to truths 
of this class. Of other truths revealed to us in 
the Bible, and those in many instances funda- 
mental to the system of Christianity, we have no 
proof of this kind; but they stand on the linn 
basis of Divine attestation, and Buffer no diminu- 
tion of their authority because the reasons oC 
them are cither hidden from us for purposes of 
moral discipline, or because they transcend our 



118 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



faculties. If we had the reasons of them before 
us, they would not be more authentic, though to 
the understanding they would be more obvious. 
Such are the doctrines of a trinity of persons in 
the unity of the Godhead : of the hypostatic 
union of the two natures in Christ: of his 
Divine and eternal Sonship, etc. Such are many 
facts in the Divine government : as the permis- 
sion of evil, and the long apparent abandon- 
ment of heathen nations ; the unequal religious 
advantages afforded to individuals as well as 
nations ; and many of the circumstances of our 
individual moral trial upon earth. Of the truth 
of these doctrines, and the fitness of these and 
many other facts, we have no internal evidence 
whatever ; but a very large class of truths which 
are found in the revelations of Scripture, afford 
more or less of this kind of proof, and make their 
appeal to our reason as well as to our faith : in 
other words, their reasonableness is such that, 
though the great demonstration does not rest 
upon that, it affords an additional argument why 
they should be thankfully received and heartily 
credited. 

The first and fundamental doctrine of Scrip- 
ture is the existence of God : the great and the 
sole First Cause of all things : eternal, self-ex- 
istent, present in all places, knowing all things : 
infinite in power and wisdom ; and perfect in 
goodness, justice, holiness, and truth. That this 
view of the Divine Being, for which we are in- 
debted to the Scriptures alone, presents itself 
with powerful rational demonstration to the mind 
of man, is illustriously shown by that astonish- 
ing change of opinion on this great subject which 
took place in pagan nations upon the promulga- 
tion of Christianity, and which in Europe con- 
tinues to this day substantially unaltered. Not 
only those gross notions which prevailed among 
the vulgar, but the dark, uncertain, and contra- 
dictory researches of the philosophers of different 
schools, have passed away; and the truth respect- 
ing God, stated in the majesty and simplicity of 
the Scriptures, has been, with few exceptions, 
universally received, and that among enlightened 
Deists themselves. These discoveries of revela- 
tion have satisfied the human mind on this great 
and primary doctrine ; and have given it a rest- 
ing-place which it never before found, and from 
which, if it ever departs, it finds no demonstra- 
tion until it returns to the "marvellous light" 
into which revealed religion has introduced us. 
A class of ideas, the most elevated and sublime, 
and which the most profound minds in former 
times sought without success, have thus become 
familiar to the very peasants in Christian nations. 
Nothing can be a more striking proof of the 
appeal which the Scripture character of God 



[PART I. 

makes to the unsophisticated reason of man- 
kind, i 

Of the state and condition of man as it is 
represented in our holy writings, the evidence 
from fact, and from the consciousness of our own 
bosoms, is very copious. AVhat man is, in his 
relations to God his maker and governor, we had 
never discovered without revelation ; but now 
this is made known, confirmatory fact crowds in 
on every side, and affords its evidence of the 
truth of the doctrine. 

The Old and New Testaments agree in repre- 
senting the human race as actually vicious, and 
capable, without moral check and control, of the 
greatest enormities : so that not only individual 
happiness, but social also, is constantly obstructed 
or endangered. To this the history of all ages 
bears witness, and present experience gives its 
testimony. All the states of antiquity crumbled 
down, or were suddenly overwhelmed by their 
own vices ; and the general character and con- 
duct of the people which composed them may be 
read in the works of their historians, poets, and 
satirists, which have been transmitted to our 
times. These, as to the Greeks and Romans, 
fully bear out the darkest coloring of their moral 
condition to be found in the well-known first 
chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Church at 
Rome, and other passages in his various epistles. 
To this day, the same representation depicts the 
condition of almost all pagan countries, and, in 
many respects too, some parts of Christendom, 
where the word of God has been hidden from the 
people, and its moral influence, consequently, 
has not been suffered to develop itself. La those 
countries also where that corrective has been 
most carefully applied, though exalted beyond 
comparison in just, honorable, benevolent, and 
sober principles and habits, along with the fre- 
quent occurrence of numerous and gross actual 
crimes, the same appetites and passions may be 
seen in constant contest with the laws of the 



1 The Scripture character of the Divine Being is thus 
strikingly drawn out by Dr. A. Clarke in his note on 
Gen. i. 1 :— 

"The eternal, independent, and self-existent Being. The 
Being whose purposes and actions spring from himself, 
without foreign motive or influence : he who is absolute in 
dominion : the most pure, most simple, and most spiritual 
of all essences : infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true, and 
holy: the cause of all being, the upholder of all things: 
infinitely happy, because infinitely good; and eternally 
self-sufficient, needing nothing that he has made. Illimit- 
able in his immensity, inconceivable in his mode of exist- 
ence, and indescribable in his essence : known fully only 
to himself, because an infinite mind can only be compre- 
hended by itself. In a word, a Being who, from his infinite 
wisdom, cannot err or be deceived; and who, from his 
infinite goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally 
just, right, and kiud." 



CH. XIX.] 

state ; with the example of the virtuous ; and 
the controlling influence of the word of God, 
preached by faithful ministers, taught as a part 
of the process of education, and spread through 
society by the multiplication of its copies since 
the invention of printing. The Holy Scriptures 
therefore characterize man only as he is actually 
found in all ages, and in all places to the utmost 
bounds of those geographical discoveries which 
have been made through the adventurous spirit 
of modern navigators. 

But they not only assume men to be actually 
vicious, but vicious in consequence of a moral 
taint in their nature, — originally and inevitably 
so, but for those provisions of grace and means 
of sanctity of which they speak ; and as this 
assumption is the basis of the whole scheme of 
moral restoration, through the once promised 
seed of the woman, and the now actually given 
Jesus, the Saviour, so they constantly remind 
him that he is "born in sin, andshapen in iniquity," 
and that, being born of the flesh, "he cannot 
please God." What is thus represented as doctrine 
appeals to our reason through the evidence of 
unquestionable fact. The strong tendency of man 
to crime cannot be denied. Civil penal laws are 
enacted for no other purpose than to repress it : 
they are multiplied in the most civilized states to 
shut out the evil in all those new directions 
towards which the multiplied relations of man, 
and his increased power, arising from increased 
intelligence, have given it its impulse. Every 
legal deed, with its seals and witnesses, bears 
testimony to that opinion as to human nature 
which the experience of man has impressed on 
man; and history itself is a record chiefly of 
human guilt, because examples of crime have 
everywhere and at all times been much more 
frequent than examples of virtue. This tendency 
to evil, the Scriptures tell us, arises from "the 
heart," — the nature and disposition of man ; and 
it is not otherwise to be accounted for. Some 
indeed have represented the corruption of the 
race as the result of association and example ; 
but if men were naturally inclined to good, and 
averse to evil, how is it that not a few individu- 
als only, but the whole race have become evil by 
mutual association ? This would be to make the 
weaker cause the more efficient, which is mani- 
festly absurd. It is contrai^y too to the reason 
of the case, that the example and association 
of persons naturally well disposed, should pro- 
duce any other effect than that of confirming 
and maturing their good dispositions: as it is 
the effect of example and association, among 
persons of similar tastes and of similar pursuits, 
to confirm and improve the habit which gives 
riso to them. As little plausibility is there in 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



119 



the opinion which would account for this general 
corruption from bad education. How, if man in 
all ages had been rightly affected in his moral 
inclinations, did a course of deleterious educa- 
tion commence? How, if commenced, came it, 
that what must have been so abhorrent to a vir- 
tuously disposed community was not arrested, 
and a better system of instruction introduced ? 
But the fact itself may be denied, as the worst 
education inculcates a virtue above the general 
practice, and no course of education was ever 
adopted purposely to encourage immorality. In 
the Scriptures alone we find a cause assigned 
which accounts for the phenomenon, and we are 
bound therefore by the rules of philosophy itself 
to admit it. It is this, that man is by nature 
prone to evil; and as it would be highly un- 
reasonable to suppose that this disposition was 
implanted in him by his benevolent and holy 
Maker, we are equally bound in reason to admit 
the Scripture solution of the fall of the human 
race from a higher and better state. 

A third view of the condition of man contained 
in the Scriptures is, that he is not only under 
the Divine authority, but that the government 
of Heaven as to him is of a mixed character : that 
he is treated with severity and with kindness 
also : that, considered both as corrupt in his 
nature and tendencies, and as in innumerable in- 
stances actually offending, he is placed under a 
rigidly restraining discipline, to meet his case in 
the first respect, and under correction and penal 
dispensation with relation to the latter. On 
the other hand, as he is an object beloved by the 
God he has offended — a being for whose pardon 
and recovery Divine mercy has made provision — 
moral ends are connected with these severities, 
and nature and providence as well as revelation 
are crowned with instances of Divine benevolence 
to the sinning race. The proof of these different 
relations of man to God, surrounds us in that 
admixture of good and evil, of indulgence and 
restraint, of felicity and misery, to which he is 
so manifestly subject. Life is felt in all ordinary 
circumstances to bo a blessing ; but it is short 
and uncertain, subject to diseases and accidents. 
Many enjoyments fall to the lot of men; yet 
with the majority they are attained by means of 
great and exhausting labors of the body or of 
the mind, through which the risks to health and 
life are greatly multiplied ; or they Sire accom- 
panied with so many disappointments, fears, and 
cares, that their number and their quality are 
greatly lessened. The globo itself, the residence 
of man, and upon whoso fertility, seasons, ex- 
terior surface, and interior stratification so much 
of tho external felicity of man depends, bears 
marks of a mingled kind of just and merciful 



120 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



government suited to such a being as man in the 
state described in the Scriptures, and to none 
else. It cannot be supposed, that if inhabited 
by a race of beings perfectly holy and in the 
full enjoyment of the Divine favor, this earth 
would be subject to destructive earthquakes, 
volcanoes, and inundations: to blights and 
dearths, the harbingers of famine : to those 
changes in the atmosphere which induce wide- 
wasting epidemic disorders : to that general 
sterility of soil which renders labor necessary to 
such a degree as fully to occupy the time of the 
majority of mankind, prevent them from en- 
gaging in pursuits worthy an intellectual nature, 
and wear down their spirits ; nor that the metals 
so necessary for man in civilized life, and, in 
many countries, the material of the fire by which 
cold must be repelled, food prepared, and the 
most important arts executed, should be hid- 
den deep in the bowels of the earth, so that a 
great body of men must be doomed to the dan- 
gerous and humbling labor of raising them ! 
These and many other instances 1 show a course 
of discipline very incongruous with the most 
enlightened views of the Divine character, if 
man be considered as an innocent being. On the 
contrary, that he is under an unmixed penal ad- 
ministration, is contradicted by the facts, that 
the earth yet yields her increase ordinarily to 
industry : that the destructive convulsions of 
nature are but occasional ; and that, generally, 
the health of the human race predominates over 
sickness, and their animal enjoyments over posi- 
tive misery. To those diverse relations of man 
to God, as stated in the Bible, the contrarieties 
of nature and providence bear an exact adapta- 
tion. Assume man to be any thing else than 
what is represented in Scripture, they would be 
discordant and inexplicable : in this view they 
harmonize. Man is neither innocent nor finally 
condemned — he is fallen and guilty, but not ex- 
cluded from the compassion and care and benig- 
nity of his God. 

The next leading doctrine of Christianity is 
the restoration of man to the Divine favor, 
through the merits of the vicarious and sacri- 
ficial death of Christ, the incarnate Son of 
God. To this many objections have been offered; 
but, on the other hand, many important reasons 
for such a procedure have been overlooked. The 
rational evidence of this doctrine, we grant, is 
partial and limited ; but it will be recollected 
that it has been already proved that the authority 
and truth of a doctrine are not thereby affected. 
It is indeed not unreasonable to suppose that 



l See the argument largely and ingeniously exhibited in 
Gisborne'8 Testimony of Nat. Theol., etc. 



the evidence of the fitness and necessity of such 
a doctrine should be to us obscure. " The reason 
of the thing," says Bishop Butler, "and the 
whole analogy of nature, should teach us not to 
expect to have the like information concerning 
the Divine conduct, as concerning our own duty." 
On whatever terms God had been pleased to 
offer forgiveness to his creatures, if any other 
had been morally possible, it is not to be sup- 
posed that all the reasons of his conduct, which 
must of course respect the very principles of his 
government in general, extending not only to 
man, but to other beings, could have been ex- 
plained; and certain it is that those to whom 
the benefit was offered would have had no right 
to require it. 

The Christian doctrine of atonement as a 
necessary merciful interposition, is grounded 
upon the liability of man to punishment in 
another life for sins committed against the law 
of God in this ; and against this view of the 
future prospects of mankind there can lie no ob- 
jection of weight. Men are capable of commit- 
ting sin, and sin is productive of misery and dis- 
order. These positions cannot be denied. That 
to violate the laws of God and to despise his 
authority are not light crimes, is clear from 
considering them in their general effect upon 
society, and upon the world. Remove from the 
human race all the effects produced by vice, 
direct and indirect : all the inward and outward 
miseries and calamities which are entirely evita- 
ble by mankind, and which they wilfully bring 
upon themselves and others, and scarcely a sigh 
would be heaved, or a groan heard, except those 
extorted by natural evils, (small comparatively 
in number,) throughout the whole earth. The 
great sum of human misery is the effect of actual 
offence ; and as it is a principle in the wisest 
and most perfect human legislation to estimate 
the guilt of individual acts by their general ten- 
dency, and to proportion the punishment to them 
under that consideration, the same reason of the 
case is in favor of this principle, as found in 
Scripture ; and thus considered, the demerit of 
the sins of an individual against God becomes 
incalculable. Nor is there any foundation to 
suppose that the punishment assigned to sin by 
the judicial appointment of the Supreme Gov- 
ernor is confined to the present life ; for before 
we can determine that, we must be able to esti- 
mate the demerit of an act of wilful transgres- 
sion in its principle, habits, and influence, which, 
as parties implicated, we are not in a state of 
feeling or judgment to attempt, were the subject 
more within our grasp. But the obvious reason 
of the case is in favor of the doctrine of future 
punishment; for not only is there an unequal 



CH. 



XIX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



121 



administration of punishments in the present 
life, so that many eminent offenders pass through 
the present state without any visible manifesta- 
tion of the Divine displeasure against their con- 
duct, but there are strong and convincing proofs 
that we are placed in a state of trial, which con- 
tinues throughout life, and the result of which 
can only be known, and consequently we our- 
selves can only become subjects of final reward 
or punishment, after existence in this world 
terminates. From the circumstances we have 
just enumerated to indicate the kind of govern- 
ment which is exercised over the human race, 
we must conclude that, allowing the Supreme 
Governor to be wise and just, benevolent and 
holy, men are neither treated as innocent nor as 
incorrigibly corrupt. Now, what reason can 
possibly be given for this mixed kind of admin- 
istration, but that the moral improvement of 
man is the object intended by it? The severity 
discountenances and restrains vice : the annexa- 
tion of inward felicity in all cases (and outward 
in all those instances in which the result depends 
upon the conduct of the individual) to holy 
habits and acts, recommends and sanctions them, 
and allures to the use of those means which God 
has provided for enabling us to form and practice 
them. No other final causes, it would appear, 
can be assigned for the peculiar manner in which 
we are governed in the present life ; and if the 
deterring and correcting severity on the one 
hand, and the alluring and instructive kindness 
on the other, which mark the Divine administra- 
tion, continue throughout life : if, in every period 
of his life here, man is capable, by the use of 
the prescribed means, of forming new habits and 
renouncing old ones, and thus of accomplishing 
the purposes of the moral discipline under which 
he is placed, then is he in a state of trial through- 
out life, and if so, he is accountable for the 
whole course of his life, and his ultimate reward 
or punishment must be in a state subsequent to 
the present. 

It is also the doctrine of Scripture that this 
future punishment of the incorrigible shall be 
final and unlimited: another consideration of 
great importance in considering the doctrine of 
atonement. This is a monitory doctrine which a 
revelation only could unfold ; but being made, it 
has no inconsiderable degree of rational evidence. 
It supposes, it is true, that no future trial shall 
be allowed to man, the present having been neg- 
lected and abused : and to this there is much 
analogy in the constant procedures of the Divine 
government in the present life. When many 
Oheokfl and admonitions from the instructions 

of the wise, and the examples of tho froward, 
havo been disregarded, poverty and sickness, in- \ 



famy and death, ensue, in a thousand cases 
which the observation of every man will furnish : 
the trial of an individual, which is to issue in his 
present happiness or misery, is terminated ; and 
so far from its being renewed frequently, in the 
hope of his finally profiting by a bitter experi- 
ence, advantages and opportunities, once thrown 
away, can never be recalled. There is nothing, 
therefore, contrary to the obvious principles of 
the Divine government as manifested in this life, 
in the doctrine which confines the space of man's 
highest and most solemn probation within cer- 
tain limits, and beyond them cutting off all his 
hope. But let this subject be considered by the 
light thrown upon it by the circumstance that 
the nature of man is immortal. With those who 
deny this to be the prerogative of the thinking 
principle in man, it would be trifling to hold this 
argument ; but with those who do not, the con- 
sideration of the subject under this view is im- 
portant. 

The existence of man is never to cease. It 
follows then from this that either the future 
trials to be allowed to those who in the present 
life have been incorrigible, are to be limited in 
number, or, should they successively fail, are to 
be repeated for ever. If the latter, there can 
be no ultimate judgment, no punishment or re- 
ward ; and consequently the Divine government 
as implying these, (and this we know it does 
from what takes place in the present life,) must 
be annihilated. If this cannot be maintained, is 
there sufficient reason to conclude that all to 
whom trial after trial is supposed to be afforded 
in new and varied circumstances, in order to 
multiply the probabilities, so to speak, of their 
final recovery from rebellion, will be at length 
reclaimed? Before this can be answered, it 
must be recollected that a state of suffering 
which would compel obedience, if we should 
suppose mere suffering capable of producing 
this effect, or an exertion of influence upon the 
understanding and will which shall necessitate a 
definite choice, is neither of them to be assumed 
as entering into the circumstances of any new 
state of trial. Every such future trial, to be 
probationary at all, that is, in order to bring out 
the existence of a new moral principle, and by 
voluntary acts to prove it, must substantially bo 
like tho present, though its circumstances may 
vary. Vice must have its allurements : virtue 
must rise from self-denial, and be led into tho 
arena to struggle with difficulty : many present 
interests and pleasures must bo seen in connec- 
tion with vice : the rewards of obedience must, 
as now, be not only more refined than mere sense 
can bo gratified with, but also distant : the mind 
must be capable of error in its moral estimate vl' 



122 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



[PART I. 



ttings, through the influence of the senses and 
passions ; and so circumstanced that those erro- 
neous views shall only be prevented or corrected 
by watchfulness, and a diligent application to 
meditation, prayer, and the use of those means 
of information on moral subjects which Almighty 
God may have put within their reach. We have 
no right in this argument to imagine to ourselves 
a future condition where the influence of every 
circumstance will be directed to render vice most 
difficult to commit, and virtue most difficult to 
avoid ; for this would not be a state of trial; and 
if in this present life men have obstinately re- 
sisted all admonitions from Heaven — obdurated 
themselves against all the affecting displays of 
the Divine kindness, and the deterring manifesta- 
tions of the Divine majesty — it is most reasona- 
ble to conclude that a part of them at least would 
abuse successive trials, and frustrate their inten- 
tion, by attachment to present and sensual grati- 
fication. What then is to become of them ? If 
we admit a moral government of rational crea- 
tures at all, their probation cannot be eternal, for 
that leads to no result : if probation be ap- 
pointed, it implies accountability, a judicial 
decision, and that judicial decision, in the case 
of the incorrigible, punishment. Whenever, then, 
the trial, or the series of trials, terminates as to 
these immortal beings, the subsequent punish- 
ment, of what kind soever it may be, must be 
eternal. This doctrine of Scripture rests, there- 
fore, upon others, of which the rational evidence 
is abundant and convincing : that Almighty God 
exercises a moral government over his creatures : 
that the present life is a state of moral discipline 
and trial; and that man is immortal. If these 
are allowed, the eternal duration of future pun- 
ishments, as to the obstinately wicked, must 
follow; and its accordance with the principles 
just mentioned is its rational evidence. 

That atonement for the sins of men which was 
made by the death of Christ, is represented in 
the Christian system as the means by which man- 
kind may be delivered from this awful catastrophe 
— from judicial inflictions of the displeasure of a 
Governor, whose authority has been contemned, 
and whose will has been resisted, which shall 
know no mitigation in their degree, nor bound 
to their duration ; and if an end, supremely great 
and benevolent, can commend any procedure to 
us, the scriptural doctrine of atonement com- 
mends this kind of appeal to our attention. This 
end it professes to accomplish, by means which, 
with respect to the supreme Governor himself, 
preserve his character from mistake, and main- 
tain the authority of his government ; and with 
respect to man, give him the strongest possible 
reason for hope, and render more favorable the 



circumstances of his earthly probation. These 
are considerations which so manifestly show, 
from its own internal constitution, the superlative 
importance and excellence of Christianity, that 
it would be exceedingly criminal to overlook 
them. 

How sin may be forgiven without leading to 
such misconceptions of the Divine character as 
would encourage disobedience, and thereby 
weaken the influence of the Divine government, 
must be considered as a problem of very difficult 
solution. A government which admitted no for- 
giveness, would sink the guilty to despair: a 
government which never punishes offence, is a 
contradiction — it cannot exist. Not to punish, 
is to dissolve authority : to punish without mercy, 
is to destroy, and, where all are guilty, to make 
the destruction universal. That we cannot sin 
with impunity, is a matter determined. The 
Ruler of the world is not careless of the conduct 
of his creatures ; for that penal consequences 
are attached to offence, is not a subject of argu- 
ment, but is made evident from daily observation 
of the events and circumstances of the present 
life. It is a principle, therefore, already laid 
down, that the authority of God must be pre- 
served ; and it ought to be observed that, in that 
kind of administration which restrains evil by 
penalty, and encourages obedience by favor and 
hope, we and all moral creatures are the interested 
parties, and not the Divine Governor himself, 
whom, because of his independent and efficient 
nature, our transgressions cannot injure. The 
reasons therefore which compel him to maintain 
his authority, do not terminate in himself. If he 
becomes a party against offenders, it is for our 
sake, and for the sake of the moral order of the 
universe, to which sin, if encouraged by a negli- 
gent administration, and by entire or frequent 
impunity, would be the source of endless disorder 
and misery; and if the granting of pardon to 
offence be strongly and even severely guarded, 
we are to refer it to the moral necessity of the 
case as arising out of the general welfare of ac- 
countable creatures, liable to the deep evil of sin, 
and not to any reluctance on the part of our 
Maker to forgive, much less to any thing vindic- 
tive in his nature, — charges which have been 
most inconsiderately and unfairly brought against 
the Christian doctrine of Christ's vicarious suffer- 
ings. If it then be true, that the relief of 
offending man from future punishment, and his 
restoration to the Divine favor, ought for the 
interests of mankind themselves, and for the in- 
struction and caution of other beings, to be so 
bestowed that no license shall be given to offence; 
that God himself, while he manifests his compas- 
sion, should not appear less just, less holy, than 



CH. XIX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



123 



the maintenance of an efficient and even awful 
authority demands : that his commands shall be 
felt to be as compelling, and that disobedience 
shall as truly, though not so unconditionally, 
subject us to the deserved penalty, as though no 
hope of forgiveness had been exhibited, we ask, 
On what scheme, save that which is developed in 
the New Testament, these necessary conditions 
are provided for? Necessary they are, unless 
we contend for a license and an impunity which 
shall annul the efficient control of the universe, 
a point which no reasonable man will contend 
for ; and if not, then he must allow an internal 
evidence of the truth of the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture, which makes the offer of pardon consequent 
only upon the securities we have before men- 
tioned. If it be said that sin may be pardoned 
in the exercise of the Divine prerogative, the 
reply is, that if this prerogative were exercised 
towards a part of mankind only, the passing by 
of the others would be with difficulty reconciled 
to the Divine character ; and if the benefit were 
extended to all, government would be at an end. 
This scheme of bringing men within the exercise 
of mercy, does not therefore meet the obvious 
difficulty of the case ; nor is it improved by con- 
fining the act of grace only to repentant criminals. 
For in the immediate view of danger, what 
offender, surrounded with the wreck of former 
enjoyments, feeling the vanity of guilty pleasures, 
now past for ever, and beholding the approach 
of the delayed but threatened penal visitation, 
but would repent ? Were this principle to regu- 
late human governments, every criminal would 
escape, and judicial forms would become a subject 
for ridicule. Nor is it the principle which the 
Divine Being in his conduct to men in the pre- 
sent state acts upon, though in this world pun- 
ishments are not final and absolute. Kepentance 
does not restore health injured by intemperance, 
property wasted by profusion, or character once 
stained by dishonorable practices. If repentance 
alone can secure pardon, then all must be par- 
doned, and government dissolved, as in the case 
of forgiveness by the exercise of mere preroga- 
tive : if a selection be made, then different and 
discordant principles of government are intro- 
duced into the Divine administration, which is a 
derogatory supposition. 

To avoid the force of these obvious difficulties, 
sonic have added refoi*mation to repentanco, and 
would restrain forgiveness to those only who to 
their penitence add a courso of future obedience 
to the Divine law. In this opinion a concession 
of importance is made in favor of the doctrine 
Of atonement as stated in the Scriptures. For 
we ask, why an act of grace should be thus 
restricted? Is not the only reason this, that 



every one sees that to pardon offence either on 
mere prerogative or on the condition of repent- 
ance, would annul every penalty, and consequently 
encourage vice ? The principle assumed then is, 
that vice ought not to be encouraged by an un- 
guarded exercise of the Divine mercy : that the 
authority of government ought to be upheld : 
that Almighty God ought not to appear indifferent 
to human actions, nor otherwise than as a God 
"hating iniquity," and "loving righteousness." 
Now, precisely on these principles does the Chris- 
tian doctrine of atonement rest. It carries them 
higher : it teaches that other means have been 
adopted to secure the object ; but the ends pro- 
posed are the same ; and thus to the principle on 
which that great doctrine rests, the objector can 
take no exception — that point he has surrendered, 
and must confine himself to a comparison of the 
efficiency of the respective modes, by which the 
purposes of moral government may be answered 
in the exercise of mercy to the guilty in his own 
system, and in that of Christianity. We shall 
not, in order to prove "the wisdom" as well as 
the grace of the doctrine of the Bible on this 
subject, press our opponent with the fact, im- 
portant as it is, that in the light vouchsafed unto 
us into the rules of the government of God over 
men with reference to the present state merely, 
we see no reason to conclude any thing with cer- 
tainty as to the efficacy of reformation. A change 
of conduct does not, any more than repentance, 
repair the mischiefs of former misconduct. Even 
the sobriety of the reformed man does not always 
restore health; and the industry and economy 
of the formerly negligent and wasteful, repair 
not the losses of extravagance. Nor is it neces- 
sary to dwell upon the consideration which this 
theory involves as to all the principles of govern- 
ment established among men, which in flagrant 
cases never suspend punishment in anticipation 
of a change of conduct ; but which in the inflic- 
tion of penalty look steadily to the crime actually 
committed, and to the necessity of vindicating 
the violated majesty of the laws. The argument 
might indeed be left here ; but we go farther, and 
show that the reformation anticipated is ideal, 
because it is impracticable. 

To make this clear, it must be recollected that 
they who oppose this theory of human reconcilia- 
tion to God, to that of the Scriptures, leave out 
of it not only the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, 
but other important doctrines; and especially 
that agency of the Holy Spirit which awakens 
the thoughtless to consideration, and prompts 
and assists their efforts to attain a. higher 
character, and to commence a new course of con- 
duct. Man is therefore left, unassisted, and un- 
influenced, to his own endeavors, and in the 



124 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



peculiar, unalleviated circumstances of his actual 
moral state. What that state is, -we have already- 
seen. It has been argued that nothing can 
account for the practical corruption of mankind, 
but a moral taint in our hearts, a propensity of 
nature to evil and not to good ; and that every 
other mode of accounting for the moral phe- 
nomena which the history of man and daily 
experience present, is inconclusive and con- 
tradictory. How then is this supposed reform- 
ation to commence ? We do not say, the 
exchange of one vice for another, that specious 
kind of reformation by which many are deceived, 
for the objector ought to have the credit of in- 
tending a reformation which implies love to the 
purity of the Divine commands ; cordial respect 
for the authority of our Maker ; and not partial, 
but universal obedience. But if the natural un- 
checked disposition of the mind is to evil, and 
supernatural assistance be disallowed, "who can 
bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?" To natural 
propension, we are also to add in this case, as 
reformation is the matter in question, the power 
of habit, proverbially difficult to break, though 
man is not in fact in the unassisted condition 
which the error now opposed supposes. The 
whole of this theory assumes human nature to 
be what it is not ; and a delusive conclusion must, 
therefore, necessarily result. If man be totally 
corrupt, the only principles from which reforma- 
tion can proceed do not exist in his nature ; and 
if we allow no more than that the propensity to 
evil in him is stronger than the propensity to 
good, it is absurd to suppose that, in opposing 
propensities, the weakest should resist the most 
powerful, — that the stream of the rivulet should 
force its way against the tides of the ocean. The 
reformation, therefore, which is to atone for his 
vices, is impracticable. 

The question proposed abstractedly, How may 
mercy be extended to offending creatures, the 
subjects of the Divine government, without en- 
couraging vice, by lowering the righteous and 
holy character of God, and the authority of his 
government, in the maintenance of which the 
whole universe of beings are interested ? is 
therefore at once one of the most important and 
one of the most difficult which can employ the 
human mind. None of the theories which have 
been opposed to Christianity afford a satisfactory 
solution of the problem. They assume princi- 
ples either destructive to moral government, or 
which cannot, in the circumstances of man, be 
acted upon. The only answer is found in the 
Holy Scriptures. They alone show, and indeed 
they alone profess to show, how God may be just, 
and yet the justifier of the ungodly. Other 
schemes show how he may be merciful ; but the 



difficulty does not lie there. This meets it, by 
declaring "the righteousness of God," at the same 
time that it proclaims his mercy. The voluntary 
sufferings of an incarnate, Divine person, "for 
us," in our room and stead, magnify the justice 
of God; display his hatred to sin; proclaim 
"the exceeding sinfulness" of transgression, by the 
deep and painful sufferings of the substitute; 
warn the persevering offender of the terribleness 
as well as the certainty of his punishment ; and 
open the gates of salvation to every penitent. 
It is a part of the same Divine plan to engage 
| the influence of the Holy Spirit, to awaken that 
penitence, and to lead the wandering soul back 
to himself ; to renew the fallen nature of man in 
righteousness, at the moment he is justified 
through faith, and to place him in circumstances 
in which he may henceforth "icalk not after the 
flesh, but after the Spirit." All the ends of govern- 
ment are here answered. No license is given to 
offence : the moral law is unrepealed : the day 
of judgment is still appointed : future and eternal 
punishments still display their awful sanctions : 
a new and singular display of the awful purity 
of the Divine character is afforded ; yet pardon 
is offered to all who seek it ; and the whole world 
may be saved ! 

With such evidence of suitableness to the case 
of mankind, under such lofty views of connection 
with the principles and ends of moral govern- 
ment, does the doctrine of the atonement pre- 
sent itself. But other important considerations 
are not wanting, to mark the united wisdom and 
goodness of that method of extending mercy to 
the guilty which Christianity teaches us to have 
been actually and exclusively adopted. It is 
rendered indeed "worthy of all acceptation," by 
the circumstance of its meeting the difficulties 
we have just dwelt upon, — difficulties which 
could not otherwise have failed to make'a gloomy 
impression upon every offender awakened to a 
sense of his spiritual danger; but it must be 
very inattentively considered if it does not fur- 
ther commend itself to us, by not only removing 
the apprehensions we might feel as to the justice 
of the Divine Lawgiver, but as exalting him in 
our esteem as "the righteous Lord, who lovcth 
righteousness," who surrendered his beloved Son 
to suffering and death, that the influence of 
moral goodness might not be weakened in the 
hearts of his creatures — as a God of love, 
affording in this instance a view of the tenderness 
and benignity of his nature infinitely more im- 
pressive and affecting than any abstract descrip- 
tion could convey, or than any act of creating 
and providential power and grace could furnish, 
! and therefore most suitable to subdue that 
; enmity which had unnaturally grown up in the 



CH. XIX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



125 



hearts of his creatures, and which, when cor- 
rupt, they so easily transfer from a law which 
restrains their inclination to the Lawgiver him- 
self. If it be important to us to know the extent 
and reality of our danger, by the death of Christ 
it is displayed, not in description, but in the most 
impressive action: if it be important that we 
should have assurance of the Divine placability 
towards us, it here received a demonstration 
incapable of greater certainty: if gratitude is 
the most powerful motive of future obedience, 
and one which renders command on the one part, 
and active service on the other, "not grievous but 
joyous" the recollection of such obligations as 
the "love of Christ" has laid us under, is a per- 
petual spring to this energetic affection, and will 
be the means of raising it to higher and more 
delightful activity for ever. All that can most 
powerfully illustrate the united tenderness and 
awful majesty of God, and the odiousness of sin; 
all that can win back the heart of man to his 
Maker and Lord, and render future obedience a 
matter of affection and delight as well as duty ; 
all that can extinguish the angry and malignant 
passions of man to man ; all that can inspire a 
mutual benevolence, and dispose to a self-deny- 
ing charity for the benefit of others ; all that can 
arouse by hope or tranquillize by faith, is to be 
found in the vicarious death of Christ, and the 
principles and purposes for which it was endured. 

"Ancient history tells us of a certain king who 
made a law against adultery, in which it was 
enacted that the offender should be punished by 
the loss of both eyes. The very first offender 
was his own son. The case was most distressing ; 
for the king was an affectionate father, as well as 
a just magistrate. After much deliberation and 
inward struggle, he finally commanded one of his 
own eyes to be pulled out, and one of his son's. 
It is easier to conceive than to describe what 
must have been the feelings of the son in these 
most affecting circumstances. His offence would 
appear to him in a new light: it would appear to 
him, not simply as connected with painful conse- 
quences to himself, but as the cause of a father's 
sufferings, and as an injury to- a father's love. 
If the king had passed ovor the law altogether, 
in his son's favor, he would have exhibited no 
regard for justice, and he would have given a 
very inferior proof of affection. 

"If we suppose that the happiness of the 
young man's life depended on the eradication of 
this criminal propensity, it is not easy to imagine 
how the king could more wisely or more effectu- 
ally have promoted this benevolent object. Tho 
action was not simply a correct representation 
of the king's character, — it also contained in 
itself au appeal most correctly adapted to tho 



feelings of the criminal. It justified the king in 
the exercise of clemency: it tranquillized the 
son's mind, as being a pledge of the reality and 
sincerity of his father's gracious purposes towards 
him; and it identified the object of his esteem 
with the object of his gratitude. Mere gratitude, 
unattracted by an object of moral worth, could 
never have stamped an impression of moral 
worth on his character, which was his father's 
ultimate design. "We might suppose the exist- 
ence of this same character without its producing 
such an action : we might suppose a conflict of 
contending feelings to be carried on in the mind 
without evidencing, in the conduct flowing from 
it, the full vehemence of the conflict, or defining 
the adjustment of the contending feelings ; but 
we cannot suppose any mode of conduct so 
admirably fitted to impress the stamp of the 
father's character on the mind of the son, or to 
associate the love of right and the abhorrence of 
wrong with the most powerful instincts of the 
heart. The old man not only wished to act in 
perfect consistency with his own views of duty, 
but also to produce a salutary effect on the mind 
of his son ; and it is the full and effectual union 
of these two objects which forms the most beau- 
tiful and striking part of this remarkable history. 

"There is a singular resemblance between this 
moral exhibition, and the communication which 
God has been pleased to make of himself in the 
Gospel. We cannot but love and admire the 
character of this excellent prince, although we 
ourselves have no direct interest in it ; and shall 
we refuse our love and admiration to the King 
and Father of the human race, who, with a 
kindness and condescension unutterable, has, in 
calling his wandering children to return to duty 
and to happiness, presented to each of us a like 
aspect of tenderness and purity, and made use 
of an argument which makes the most direct and 
irresistible appeal to the most familiar, and at 
the same time the most powerful principles in 
the heart of man ? 

"A pardon without a sacrifice, could have 
made but a weak and obscure appeal to the 
understanding or the heart. It could not have 
demonstrated the evil of sin : it could not have 
demonstrated the graciousness of God ; and 
therefore it could not have led man either to 
hate sin or to love God. If the punishment, as 
well as the criminality of sin, consists in an 
opposition to the character of God, the fullest 
pardon must be perfectly useless, while this 
opposition remains in the heart : and the sub- 
stantial usefulness of the pardon will depend 
upon its being connected with such circumstances 
as may have a natural and powerful tendency to 
remove this opposition, and create a resemblance. 



126 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



The pardon of the Gospel is connected with such 
circumstances; for the sacrifice of Christ has 
associated sin with the blood of a benefactor, as 
"well as with our own personal sufferings, — and 
obedience with the dying entreaty of a friend 
breathing out a tortured life for us, as well as 
with our own unending glory in his blessed 
society. This act, like that in the preceding 
illustration, justifies God as a lawgiver in dis- 
pensing mercy to the guilty : it gives a pledge 
of the sincerity and reality of that mercy ; and, 
by associating principle with mercy, it identifies 
the object of gratitude with the object of esteem 
in the heart of the sinner." 1 

Inseparably connected with the great doctrine 
of atonement, and adapted to the new circum- 
stances of trial in which the human race was 
placed in consequence of the lapse of our first 
parents, is the doctrine of the influence of the 
Holy Spirit ; and this, though supposed by many 
to be farthest removed from rational evidence, 
can neither be opposed by any satisfactory argu- 
ment, nor is without an obvious reasonableness. 

The Scriptures represent man in the present 
state as subject not only to various sensible 
excitements to transgression, and as influenced 
to resist temptation by the knowledge of the law 
of God and its sanctions, by his own sense of 
right and duty, and by the examples of the evils 
of offence which surround him; but also as 
solicited to obedience by the influence of the 
Holy Spirit, and to persevering rebellion by the 
seductions of evil spirits. 

This is the doctrine of revelation, and if the 
evidences of that revelation can be disproved, it 
may be rejected; if not, it must be admitted, 
whether any argumentative proof can be offered 
in its favor or not. That it is not unreasonable, 
may be first established. 

That God, who made us, and who is a pure 
Spirit, cannot have immediate access to our 
thoughts, our affections, and our will, it would 
certainly be much more unreasonable to deny 
than to admit; and if the great and universal 
Spirit possesses this power, every physical objec- 

1 Remarks on the Internal Evidence of the Truth of 
Revealed Religion ; by Thomas Erskine, Esq. — This popu- 
lar and interesting volume contains many very striking, 
just, and eloquent remarks in illustration of the internal 
evidence of several doctrines of the New Testament, and 
especially of that of the atonement. It is to be regretted, 
however, that it sets out from a false principle, and builds 
so much truth upon the sand. " The sense of moral obli- 
gation is the standard to which reason instructs man to 
adjust his system of natural religion" and this is "the test 
by which he is to try all pretensions to religion." The 
principle of the book therefore is to show the excellence of 
Christianity from its embodying the abstract principles of 
natural religion in intelligible and palpable action — a 
gratuitous and unsubstantial foundation. 



I tion at least to the doctrine in question is 
removed, and finite unbodied spirits may have 
the same kind of access to the mind of man, 
though not in so perfect and intimate a degree. 

\ Before any natural impossibility can be urged 

, against this intercourse of spirit with spirit, we 
must know what no philosopher, however deep 
his researches into the causes of the phenomena 

j of the mind, has ever professed to know — the 
laws of perception, memory, and association. 

I We can suggest thoughts and reasons to each 
other, and thus mutually influence our wills and 

| affections. We employ for this purpose the media 
of signs and words ; but to contend that these 
are the only media through which thought can be 
conveyed to thought, or that spiritual beings 
cannot produce the same effects immediately, is to 
found an objection wholly upon our ignorance. 
All the reason which the case, considered in 
itself, affords, is certainly in favor of this opi- 
nion. We have access to each other's minds ; we 
can suggest thoughts, raise affections, influence 
the wills of others ; and analogy therefore favors 
the conclusion that, though by different and 
latent means, unbodied spirits have the same 
access to each other and to us. 

If no physical impossibility lies against this 
representation of the circumstances of our pro- 
bation, no moral reason certainly can be urged 
against the principle itself, which makes us liable 
to the contrary solicitations of other beings. 
That God, our Heavenly Father, should be soli- 
citous for our welfare, is surely to be admitted ; 
and that there may be invisible beings who are 
anxious, from various motives — some of which 
may be conceived, and others are unknown — to 
entice us to evil, is made probable by this, that 
among men, every vicious character seeks a fel- 
lowship in his vices, and employs various arts of 
seduction, even when he has no interest in suc- 
cess, that he may not be left to sin alone. In 
point of fact, we see this principle of moral 
trial in constant operation with respect to our 
fellow-creatures. Who is not counselled, and 
warned, and entreated by the good? Who is not 
invited to offence by the wicked ? What are all 
the instructive, enlightening, and influential in- 
stitutions which good and benevolent men esta- 
blish and conduct, but means by which others 
may be drawn and influenced to what is right ? 
And what are all the establishments and devices 
to multiply the gratifications and pleasures of 
mankind, but means employed by others to en- 
courage religious trifling, and indifference to 
things devout and spiritual, and often to seduce 
to vice in its grossest forms ? The principle is 
therefore in manifest operation; and he who 
would except to this doctrine of Scripture, must 



CH. XIX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



127 



also except to the Divine government as it is 
manifested in the facts of experience, and which 
clearly makes it a circumstance of our probation 
in this world, that our opinions, affections, and 
wills should be subject to the influence of others, 
both for good and evil. 

By reference to this fact, we may also show 
the futility of the objection to the doctrine of 
supernatural influence, which is drawn from the 
free agency of man. The Scriptures do not 
teach that supernatural influence, either good 
or bad, destroys our freedom and accountability. 
How then, it is asked, is the one to be recon- 
ciled with the other? The answer is, that we 
are sure they are not incompatible, because, 
though we may be strongly influenced and 
solicited to good or evil conduct by virtuous or 
vicious persons ; though they may enforce their 
respective wishes by arguments, or persuasions, 
or hopes, or fears ; though they may care- 
fully lead us into circumstances which may be 
most calculated to undermine or to corroborate 
virtuous resolutions ; we are yet conscious that 
we are at liberty either to yield or to resist ; and 
on this consciousness, equally common to all, 
is founded that common judgment of the con- 
duct of those who, though carefully well advised, 
or assiduously seduced, are always treated as 
free agents in public opinion, and praised or 
censured accordingly. The case is the same 
where the influence is supernatural, only the 
manner in which it is applied is different. In 
one it operates upon the springs which most 
powerfully move the will and affections from 
without, in the other it is more immediately from 
within ; but in neither case is it to be supposed 
that any other beings can will or choose for 
us. The modus operandi in both cases may be 
inexplicable ; but while the power of influencing 
our choice may belong to others, the power 
of choosing is exclusively and necessarily our 
own. 

Since therefore no reason physical or moral 
can be urged against the doctrine of Divine in- 
fluence ; since the principle on which it is 
founded, as a circumstance in our trial on earth, 
is found to accord entirely with the actual 
arrangements of the Divine government in other 
cases, every thing is removed which might 
obstruct our view of the excellence of this en- 
couraging tenet of Divine revelation. The moral 
helplessness of man has been universally felt, 
and universally acknowledged. To seo the good 
and to follow the evil, has been the complaint 
of all ; and precisely to such a state is tho doc- 
trine of Divine influence adapted. As the atone- 
ment of Christ stoops to the judicial destitution of 
man, tho promise of tho Holy Spirit meets the 



case of his moral destitution. One finds him 
without any means of satisfying the claims of 
justice, so as to exempt him from punishment ; 
the other, without the inclination or the strength 
to avail himself even of proclaimed clemency 
and offered pardon, and becomes the means of 
awakening his judgment, and exciting, and 
assisting, and crowning his efforts to obtain that 
boon, and its consequent blessings. The one 
relieves him from the penalty, the other from 
the disease of sin : the former restores to man 
the favor of God, the other renews him in his 
image. 

To this eminent adaptation of the doctrine to 
the condition of man, we may add the affecting 
view which it unfolds of the Divine character. 
That tenderness and compassion of God to his 
offending creatures ; that reluctance that they 
should perish; that Divine and sympathizing 
anxiety, so to speak, to accomplish their salva- 
tion, which were displayed by " the cross of 
Christ,'''' are here in continued and active mani- 
festation. A Divine Agent is seen "seeking" 
in order that he may save, " that which is lost:" 
following the " lost sheep into the wilderness," that 
he may "bring it home rejoicing:" delighting 
to testify of Christ, because of the salvation 
he has procured : to accompany with his influ- 
ence the written revelation, because that alone 
contains "words by which men may be saved:" 
affording special assistance to ministers, because 
they are the messengers of God proclaiming 
peace; and, in a word, knocking at the door of 
human hearts ; arousing the conscience ; calling 
forth spiritual desires ; opening the eyes of the 
mind more clearly to discern the meaning and 
application of the revealed word; and mollify- 
ing the heart to receive its effectual impression: 
doing this too without respect of persons, and 
making it his special office and work to convince 
the mistaken; to awaken the indifferent; to 
comfort the penitent and humble ; to plant and 
foster and bring to maturity in the hearts of the 
obedient every grace and virtue. These are 
views of God which we could not have had but 
for this doctrine ; and the obvious tendency of 
them is, to fill the heart with gratitude for a 
condescension so wonderful and a solicitude so 
tender; to impress us with a deep conviction of 
the value of renewed habits, since God himself 
stoops to work them in us; and to admonish us 
of the infinite importance of a personal experi- 
ence of the benefits of Christ's death, since the 
means of our pardon and sanctification unapplied 
can avail us nothing. 

Wo may add, (and it is no feeble argument 
in favor of tho oxcollenco of this branch of 
Christian doctrine,) that we are thereby encou- 



128 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



raged to aspire after a loftier character of moral 
purity, and a more perfect state of virtue; as 
well as to engage in more difficult duties. Were 
we left wholly to our own resources, we should 
despair ; and perhaps it is exactly in proportion 
to the degree in which this promise of the Holy 
Spirit is apprehended by those who truly re- 
ceive Christianity, that they advance the standard 
of possible moral attainment. That God should 
"work in us to will and to do of his good plea- 
sure," is a reason why we should "work out our 
own salvation with fear and trembling ;" for as our 
freedom is not destroyed, as even the Spirit 
may be "grieved" and "quenched," our fall 
would be unspeakably aggravated by our advan- 
tages. But the operation of God within us is 
also a motive to the working our salvation 
" out," — to the perfecting of our sanctification 
even to eternal life. None can despair of con- 
quering any evil habit, who steadily look to this 
great doctrine, and cordially embrace it: none 
can despair of being fully renewed again in the 
image of God, when they know that it is one of 
the offices of the Holy Spirit to effect this renova- 
tion; and none who habitually rest upon the 
promise of God for all that assistance which the 
written word warrants them to expect in diffi- 
cult and painful duties, and in those generous 
enterprises for the benefit of others which a 
hallowed zeal may lead them to engage in, will 
be discouraged in either. "In the name of God," 
such persons have in all ages "lifted up their 
banners," and have thus been elevated into a 
decision, a boldness, an enterprise, a persever- 
ance, which no other consideration or trust could 
inspire. Such are the practical effects of this 
doctrine. It prompts to attainments in inward 
sanctity and outward virtue which it would 
have been chimerical to consider possible, but 
for the aid of a Divine influence ; and it leads to 
exertion for the benefit of others, the success of 
which would otherwise be too doubtful to en- 
courage the undertaking. 

It would be easy to adduce many other 
doctrines of our religion, which, from their 
obvious excellency and correspondence with the 
experience and circumstances of mankind, fur- 
nish much interesting internal evidence in favor 
of its Divinity ; but as this would greatly ex- 
ceed the limits of a chapter, and as those 
doctrines have been considered against which 
the most strenuous objections from pretended 
rational principles have been urged — the moral 
state and condition of man; the atonement 
made by the death of Christ for the sins of the 
world ; and the influences of the Holy Spirit — 
it may have been sufficient for the argument 
to have shown that even such doctrines are 



accompanied with important and interesting 
reasons; and that they powerfully commend 
Christianity to universal acceptance. What has 
been said is to be considered only as a specimen 
of the rational proof which accompanies many 
of the doctrines of revelation, and which a 
considerate mind may with ease enlarge by 
numerous other instances drawn from its pre- 
cepts, its promises, and those future and en- 
nobling hopes which it sets before us. The 
| wonderful agreement in doctrine among the writers 
I of the numerous books of which the Bible is 
composed, who lived in ages very distant from 
each other, and wrote under circumstances as 
varied as can well be conceived, may properly 
j close this part of the internal evidence. "In 
| all the bearings, parts, and designs of the book 
! of God, we shall find a most striking harmony, 
fitness, and adaptation of its component parts 
to one beautiful, stupendous, and united whole ; 
and that all its parts unite and terminate in a 
most magnificent exhibition of the glory of 
God, the lustre of his attributes, the strict and 
true perfection of his moral government, the 
magnitude and extent of his grace and love, 
especially as manifested in the salvation and 
happiness of man, in his recovery from moral 
depravity, and restoration to a capacity of acquir- 
ing happiness eternal." (Lloyd's Horce Theo- 
logical.) This argument is so justly and forcibly 
expressed in the following quotation, as to need 
no further elucidation : — 

"The sacred volume is composed by a vast 
variety of writers, men of every different rank 
and condition, of every diversity of character 
and turn of mind: the monarch and the ple- 
beian, the illiterate and learned, the foremost in 
talent and the moderately gifted in natural ad- 
vantages, the historian and the legislator, the 
orator and the poet — each has his peculiar pro- 
vince: ' some prophets, some apostles, some evangel- 
ists:'' living in ages remote from each other, 
under different modes of civil government, under 
different dispensations of the Divine economy, 
filling a period of time which reached from the 
first dawn of heavenly light to its meridian 
radiance. The Old Testament and the New, the 
law and the gospel; the prophets predicting 
events, and the evangelists recording them ; the 
doctrinal yet didactic epistolary writers, and he 
who closed the sacred canon in the Apocalyptic 
vision : all thtse furnished their respective por- 
tions, and yet all tally with a dove-tailed corre- 
spondence : all the different materials are joined 
with a completeness the most satisfactory, with 
an agreement the most incontrovertible. 

"This instance of uniformity without design, 
of agreement without contrivance: this con- 



CH. XIX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHEISTIANIT Y. 



129 



sistency maintained through a long series of 
ages, without a possibility of the ordinary 
methods for conducting such a plan : these un- 
paralleled congruities, these unexampled coin- 
cidences, form altogether a species of evidence 
of which there is no other instance in the history 
of all the other books in the world. 

"All these variously gifted writers here enume- 
rated, concur in this grand peculiarity — that 
all have the same end in view, all are pointing 
to the same object: all, without any projected 
collusion, are advancing the same scheme : 
each brings in his several contingent without 
any apparent consideration how it may unite 
with the portions brought by other contributors, 
without any spirit of accommodation, without 
any visible intention to make out a case, without 
indeed any actual resemblance, more than that 
every separate portion being derived from the 
same spring, each must be governed by one 
common principle, and that principle being truth 
itself, must naturally and consentaneously pro- 
duce assimilation, conformity, agreement. What 
can we conclude from all this, but what is 
indeed the inevitable conclusion — a conclusion 
which forces itself on the mind, and compels the 
submission of the understanding — that all this, 
under differences of administration, is the work 
of one and the same great omniscient and eternal 
Spirit!'" — Mrs. More's Character of St. Paul. 

The second branch of the internal evidence of 
the Scriptures consists of their moral tendency ; 
and here, as in doctrine, the believer may take 
the highest and most commanding ground. 

If, as to the truths revealed in them, the before 
"unknown God," unknown even to the philoso- 
phers of Athens, has been "declared" unto us: 
if the true moral condition, dangers, and hopes 
of man have been revealed : if the " kindness and 
good-will of God our Saviour unto man" has 
appeared : if the true propitiation has been dis- 
closed, and the gates of salvation opened: if, 
through the promised influences of the Holy 
Spirit, the renewal of our natures in the image 
of God originally borne by man, the image of his 
holiness, is made possible to all who seek it : if 
we have, in the consentaneous system of doctrine 
which we find in the Scriptures, every moral 
direction which can safely guide, every promise 
which can convey a blessing suitable to our con- 
dition, and every hopo which can at once support 
under sufforing, and animate us to go through 
our course of trial, and aspire to the high 
rewards of another life — the moral influence of 
Mich a system is as powerful as its revelations of 
doctrine are lofty and important. 

One of the most flagrant instances of that 
malignity of heart with which some infidel writers 



have assailed the Scriptures — and which, more 
than any thing, shows that it is not the want of 
evidence, but a hostility arising from a less 
creditable source, which leads them, in the spirit 
of enmity and malice, wilfully to libel what they 
ought to adore — is, that they have boldly asserted 
the Bible to have an immoral tendency. For 
this, the chief proof which they pretend to offer 
is, that it records the failings and the vices of 
some of the leading characters in the Old and 
New Testaments. 

The fact is not denied ; but they suppress 
what is equally true, that these vices are never 
mentioned with approbation : that the characters 
stained with them are not, in those respects, held 
up to our imitation ; and that their frailties are 
recorded for admonition. They dwell upon the 
crimes of David, and sneer at his being called 
"a man after God's own heart;" but they suppress 
the fact that he was so called long before the 
commission of those crimes ; and that he was not 
at any time declared to be acceptable to God with 
reference to his private conduct as a man, but in 
respect of his public conduct as a king. Nor do 
they state that these crimes are, in the same 
Scriptures, represented as being tremendously 
visited by the displeasure of the Almighty, both 
in the life of David, and in the future condition 
of his family. From such objectors the Bible 
can suffer nothing, because the injustice of their 
attacks implies a constrained homage to the force 
of truth. Even this very objection furnishes so 
strong an argument in favor of the sincerity and 
honesty of the sacred writers, that it confirms 
their credibility in that which unbelievers deny, as 
well as in those relations which they are glad, 
for a hostile purpose, to admit. Had the Scrip- 
tures been written by cunning impostors, such 
acknowledgments of crimes and frailties in 
their most distinguished characters, and in some 
of the writers themselves, would not have been 
made. 

"The evangelists all agree in this most un- 
equivocal character of veracity, that of criminat- 
ing themselves. They record their own errors 
and offences with the same simplicity with which 
they relate the miracles and sufferings of their 
Lord. Indeed, their dulncss, mistakes, and fail- 
ings are so intimately blended with his history by 
their continual demands upon his patience and 
forbearance, as to make no inconsiderable or un- 
important part of it. This fidelity is equally 
admirable both in tho composition and in tho 
preservation of the Old Testament, a book which 
everywhere testifies against those whose history 
it contains, and not seldom against the relators 
themselves. The author of tho Pentateuch pro- 
claims, in the most pointed terms, the ingrati- 



130 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



tude of those chosen people towards God. He 
prophesies that they will go on filling np the 
measure of their offences, calls heaven and earth 
to witness against them that he has delivered 
his own soul, and declares that as they have 
worshipped gods which were no gods, Gqjd will 
punish them by calling a people who were no 
people. Yet this book, so disgraceful to their 
national character, this register of their own 
offences, they would rather die than lose. ' This,' 
says the admirable Pascal, 'is an instance of 
integrity which has no example in the world, no 
root in nature.' In the Pentateuch and the 
Gospels, therefore, these parallel, these un- 
equalled instances of sincerity, are incontrovert- 
ible proofs of the truth of both." — Mrs. Moke's 
Character of St. Paul. 

It is but just to say, that the malignant 
absurdity and wickedness of charging the Scrip- 
tures with an immoral tendency, have not been 
incurred by all who have even zealously endea- 
vored to undermine their Divine authority. 
Many of them make important concessions on 
this point. They show in their own characters 
the effect of their unbelief, and probably the 
chief cause of it: Blount committed suicide, 
because he was prevented from an incestuous 
marriage : Tyndal was notoriously infamous : 
Hobbes changed his principles with his interests : 
Morgan continued to profess Christianity while 
he wrote against it : the moral character of 
Voltaire was mean and detestable : Bolingbroke 
was a rake and a flagitious politician: Collins 
and Shaftesbury qualified themselves for civil 
offices by receiving the sacrament, while they 
were endeavoring to prove the religion of which 
it is a solemn expression of belief a mere impos- 
ture: Hume was revengeful, disgustingly vain, 
and an advocate of adultery and self-murder: 
Paine was the slave of low and degrading habits ; 
and Rousseau an abandoned sensualist, and 
guilty of the basest actions, which he scruples 
not to state and palliate. Yet even some of these 
have admitted the superior purity of the morals 
of the Christian revelation. The eloquent eulo- 
gium of Rousseau on the gospel and its Author, 
is well known: it is a singular passage, and 
shows that it is the state of the heart, and not 
the judgment, which leads to the rejection of the 
testimony of God. 1 

i "I will confess to you that the majesty of the Scrip- 
tures strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the 
gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of 
our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction: how 
mean, how contemptible are they, compared with the 
Scriptures! Is it possible that a book at once so simple 
and sublime should be merely the work of man ? Is it 
possible that the sacred personage whose history it contains 
-should be himself a mere man? Do we find that he 



[PART I. 

Nor is it surprising that a truth so obvious 
should, even from adversaries, extort concession. 
Nowhere but in the Scriptures have we a perfect 
system of morals ; and the deficiencies of pagan 
morality only exalt the purity, the comprehen- 
siveness, the practicability of ours. The cha- 
racter of the Being acknowledged as Supreme 
must always impress itself upon moral feeling 
and practice ; the obligation of which rests upon 
his will. We have seen the views entertained 
by pagans on this all-important point, and their 
effects. The God of the Bible is " holy" without 
spot; "just," without intermission or partiality; 
"good," — boundlessly benevolent and beneficent; 
and his law is the image of himself, "holy, just, 
and good." These great moral qualities are not, 
as with them, so far as they were apprehended, 
merely abstract, and, therefore, comparatively 
feeble in their influence. In the person of Christ, 
our God incarnate, they are seen exemplified in 

assumed the tone of an enthusiast or ambitious sectary ? 
"What sweetness, what purity in his manners ! What an 
affecting gracefulness in his delivery! What sublimity 
in his maxims ! What profound wisdom in his discourses ! 
What presence of mind in his replies! How great the 
command over his passions ! Where is the man, where the 
philosopher, who could so live, and so die, without weak- 
ness, and without ostentation ? When Plato described his 
imaginary good man with all the shame of guilt, yet merit- 
ing the highest rewards of virtue, he described exactly the 
character of Jesus Christ : the resemblance was so striking 
that all the Christian fathers perceived it. 

" What prepossession, what blindness must it be to com- 
pare the son of Sophroniscus [Socrates] to the Son of Mary ! 
What an infinite disproportion is there between them ! 
Socrates, dying without pain or ignominy, easily supported 
his character to the last ; and if his death, however easy, 
had not crowned his life, it might have been doubted 
whether Socrates, with all his wisdom, was any thing more 
than a vain sophist. He invented, it is said, the theory of 
morals. Others, however, had before put them in practice ; 
he had only to say, therefore, what they had done, and to 
reduce their examples to precept. But where could Jesus 
learn among his competitors that pure and sublime moral- 
ity, of which he only has given us both precept and ex- 
ample? The death of Socrates, peaceably philosophizing 
with his friends, appears the most agreeable that could be 
wished for : that of Jesus, expiring in the midst of agoniz- 
ing pains, abused, insulted, and accused by a whole nation, 
is the most horrible that could be feared. Socrates, in 
receiving the cup of poison, blessed the weeping execu- 
tioner who administered it; but Jesus, in the midst of 
excruciating tortures, prayed for his merciless tormentors. 
Yes! if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, 
I the life and death of Jesus were those of a God. Shall we 
| suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my 
friend, it bears not the marks of fiction : on the contrary, 
I the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, 
' is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ. Such a 
' supposition, in fact, only shifts the difficulty, without obvi- 
i ating it : it is more inconceivable that a number of persons 
: should agree to write such a history, than that one only 
should furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were 
incapable of the diction and strangers to the morality con- 
tained in the gospel, the marks of whose truth are so 
striking and inimitable, that the inventor would be a more 
astonishing man than the hero." 



CH. XIX.] 

action, displaying themselves amidst human rela- 
tions, and the actual circumstances of human 
life. With them the authority of moral rules 
was either the opinion of the wise, or the tradi- 
tion of the ancient, confirmed, it is true, in some 
degree, by observation and experience ; but to 
us they are given as commands immediately from 
the supreme Governor, and ratified as his by the 
most solemn and explicit attestations. With 
them, many great moral principles, being indis- 
tinctly apprehended, were matters of doubt and 
debate : to us, the explicit manner in which they 
are given excludes both ; for it cannot be ques- 
tioned whether we are commanded to love our 
neighbor as ourselves: to do to others as we 
would they should do to us, a precept which 
comprehends almost all relative morality in one 
plain principle : to forgive our enemies : to love 
all mankind: to live "righteously" and "soberly," 
as well as "godly :" that magistrates must be a 
terror only to evil-doers, and a praise to them 
that do well: that subjects are to render honor 
to whom honor, and tribute to whom tribute, is 
due: that masters are to be just and merciful, and 
servants faithful and obedient. These, and 
many other familiar precepts, are too explicit to 
be mistaken, and too authoritative to be disputed 
— two of the most powerful means of rendering 
law effectual. Those who never enjoyed the 
benefit of revelation, never conceived justly and 
comprehensively of that moral state of the heart 
from which right and beneficent conduct alone 
can flow ; and, therefore, when they speak of 
the same virtues as those enjoined by Christian- 
ity, they are to be understood as attaching to 
them a lower idea. In this the infinite superior- 
ity of Christianity displays itself. The principle 
of obedience is not only a sense of duty to God, 
and the fear of his displeasure, but a tender 
love, excited by his infinite compassions to us in 
the gift of his Son, which shrinks from offending. 
To this influential motive as a reason of obedience, 
is added another, drawn from its end — one not 
less influential, but which heathen moralists 
never knew — the testimony that we please God, 
manifested in the acceptance of our prayers, and 
in spiritual and felicitous communion with him. 
By Christianity, impurity of thought and desire 
is restrained in an equal degree as their overt 
acts in the lips and conduct. Humanity, meek- 
ness, gentleness, placability, disinterestedness, 
and charity, arc all as clearly and solemnly 
enjoined as tho grosser vices are prohibited; and 
on tho unruly tongue itself is impressed "the 
law of kindness." Nor are tho injunctions feeble: 
they arc strictly law, and not merely advice and 
recommendations. "Without holiness no man 
shall see tho Lord;" and thus our cntranco into 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



131 



heaven, and our escape from perdition, are made 
to depend upon this preparation of mind. To 
all this is added possibility, nay, certainty of 
attainment, if we use the appointed means. A 
pagan could draw, though not with lines so 
perfect, a beau ideal of virtue, which he never 
thought attainable; but the "full assurance of 
hope" is given by the religion of Christ to all who 
are seeking the moral renovation of their nature ; 
because " it is God that worketh in us to will and 
to do of his good pleasure." 

When such is the moral tendency of Christi- 
anity, how obvious is its beneficial tendency both 
as to the individual and to society ! From every 
passion which wastes, and burns, and frets, and 
enfeebles the spirit, the individual is set free, 
and his inward peace renders his obedience 
cheerful and voluntary ; and we might appeal to 
infidels themselves, whether, if the moral prin- 
ciples of the gospel were wrought into the hearts 
and embodied in the conduct of all men, the world 
would not be happy: whether, if governments 
ruled and subjects obeyed by the laws of Christ: 
whether, if the rules of strict justice which are 
enjoined upon us regulated all the transactions 
of men, and all that mercy to the distressed 
which we are taught to feel and to practice came 
into operation; and whether, if the precepts 
which delineate and enforce the duties of hus- 
bands, wives, masters, servants, parents, child- 
ren, fully and generally governed all these rela- 
tions, a better age than that called golden by the 
poets would not be realized, and Virgil's 

Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, 

be far too weak to express the mighty change ? 
Such is the tendency of Christianity. On im- 
mense numbers of individuals it has superinduced 
these moral changes : all nations, where it has 
been fully and faithfully exhibited, bear, amidst 
their remaining vices, the impress of its hallow- 
ing and benevolent influence : it is now in active 
exertion, in many of the darkest and worst parts 
of the earth, to convey the same blessings ; and 
he who would arrest its progress, were he able, 
would quench the only hope which remains to 
our world, and prove himself an enemy, not only 
to himself, but to all mankind. What then, we 
ask, does all this prove, but that the Scriptures 
are worthy of God, and propose the very ends 
which rendered a revelation necessary? Of tho 
whole system of practical religion which it con- 
tains we may say, as of that which is embodied 
in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, in the words 
of one who, in a course of sermons on that 
Divine composition, has entered most deeply into 
its spirit, and presented a most instructive de- 
lineation of the character which it was intended 



132 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



to form : " Behold Christianity in its native form, 
as delivered by its great Author. See a picture 
of God, as far as he is mutable by man, drawn 
by God's own hand. What beauty appears in 
the whole ! How just a symmetry ! What exact 
proportion in every part ! How desirable is the 
happiness here described ! How venerable, how 
lovely is the holiness!" (Wesley's Sermons.) 
"If," says Bishop Taylor, "wisdom, and mercy, 
and justice, and simplicity, and holiness, and 
purity, and meekness, and contentedness, and 
charity, be images of God, and rays of Divinity, 
then that doctrine in which all these shine so 
gloriously, and in which nothing else is ingredi- 
ent, must needs be from God. If the holy Jesus 
had come into the world with less splendor of 
power and mighty demonstrations, yet the ex- 
cellency of what he taught makes him alone fit 
to be the Master or the world." — Moral De- 
monstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion. 
Internal evidence of the truth of the Scrip- 
tures may also be collected from their style. It 
is various, and thus accords with the profession 
that the whole is a collection of books by differ- 
ent individuals: each has his own peculiarity 
so strongly marked, and so equally sustained 
throughout the book or books ascribed to him, 
as to be a forcible proof of genuineness. The 
style of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, 
the evangelists, and St. Paul, are all strikingly 
different. The writers of the New Testament 
employ Hebrew idioms, words, and phrases. 
The Greek in which they wrote is not classical 
Greek ; but, as it is observed by Bishop Marsh, 
"is such a dialect as would be used by persons 
educated in a country where Chaldee or Syriac 
was spoken as the vernacular tongue ; but who 
also acquired a knowledge of Greek by frequent 
intercourse with strangers." This, therefore, 
affords an argument from internal evidence that 
the books were written by the persons whose 
names they bear ; and it has been shown by the 
same prelate, that as this particular style was 
changed after the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
same compound language could not be written 
in any other age than the first century, and proof 
is obtained from this source also in favor of the 
antiquity of the Scriptures of the New Testa- 
ment. An argument to the same point of an- 
tiquity is drawn by Michaelis from the accord- 
ancy of the evangelic history and the apostolical 
epistles with the history and manners of the age 
to which they refer. "A Greek or Roman Chris- 
tian," he observes, "who lived in the second or 
third century, though as well versed in the writ- 
ings of the ancients as Eustathius or Asconius, 
would still have been wanting in Jewish litera- 
ture ; and a Jewish convert in those ages, even 



the most learned rabbi, would have been equally 
deficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome. 
If, then, the New Testament, thus exposed to 
detection, (had it been an imposture,) is found, 
after the severest researches, to harmonize with 
the history, the manners, and the opinions of the 
first century, and since the more minutely we 
inquire, the more perfect we find the coincidence, 
we must conclude that it was beyond the reach 
of human abilities to effectuate so wonderful a 
deception." 

The manner of the sacred writers is also in 
proof that they were conscious of the truth of 
what they relate. The whole narrative is simple 
and natural. Even in the accounts given of the 
creation, the flood, the exodus from Egypt, and 
the events of the life and death of Christ, where 
designing men would have felt most inclined to 
endeavor to heighten the impression by glowing 
and elaborate description, the same chastened 
simplicity is preserved. " These sober recorders 
of events the most astonishing, are never carried 
away, by the circumstances they relate, into any 
pomp of diction, into any use of superlatives. 
There is not, perhaps, in the whole gospel a 
single interjection, not an exclamation, nor any 
artifice to call the reader's attention to the mar- 
vels of which the relaters were the witnesses. 
Absorbed in their holy task, no alien idea pre- 
sents itself to their mind: the object before them 
fills it. They never digress: are never called 
away by the solicitations of vanity, or the sug- 
gestions of curiosity. No image starts up to 
divert their attention. There is, indeed, in the 
Gospels much imagery, much allusion, much 
allegory, but they proceed from their Lord, and 
are recorded as his. The writers never fill up 
the intervals between events. They leave cir- 
cumstances to make their own impression, in- 
stead of helping out the reader by any reflections 
of their own. They always feel the holy ' ground 
on which they stand. They preserve the gravity 
of history and the severity of truth, without en- 
larging the outline or swelling the expression.'" 
— Mrs. More's Character of St. Paul. 

Another source of internal evidence, arising 
from incidental coincidences, which, from "their 
latency and minuteness," must be supposed to 
have their foundation in truth, is opened, and 
ably illustrated, by Dr. Paley, in his "Hora? 
Paulinae," a work which will well repay the 
perusal. 

Much of the collateral evidence of the truth 
of the Scriptures generally, and of Christianity 
in particular, has been anticipated in the course 
of this discussion, and need not again be re- 
sumed. The agreement of the final revelation 
of the will of God, by the ministry of Christ and 



CH. XIX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



19< 
6i 



his apostles, -with former authenticated revela- 
tions, has been pointed out ; so that the whole 
constitutes one body of harmonious doctrines, 
gradually introduced, and at length fully un- 
folded and confirmed. The suitableness of the 
Christian revelation to the state of the world, at 
the time of its communication, follows from the 
view we have given of the necessity, not only of 
a revelation generally, but of such a revelation 
as the mercy of God has vouchsafed to the world 
through his Son. It has also been shown that 
its historical facts accord with the credible histo- 
ries and traditions of the same time : that monu- 
ments remain to attest its truth, in the institutions 
of the Christian Church ; and that adversaries 
have made concessions in its favor. 1 Our further 
remarks on this subject, though many other in- 
teresting particulars might be embraced, must 
be confined to two particulars, but each of a very 
convincing character. The first is, the marvel- 
lous diffusion of Christianity in the first three 
centuries : the second is, the actual beneficial 
effect produced, and which is still producing, by 
Christianity upon mankind. 

With respect to the first, the fact to be ac- 
counted for is, that the first preachers of the 
gospel, though unsupported by human power, 
and uncommended by philosophic wisdom, and 
oven in opposition to both, succeeded in effecting 
a revolution in the opinions and manners of a 
great portion of the civilized world, to which 
there is no parallel in the history of mankind. 2 
" Though aspersed by the slander of the mali- 
cious, and exposed to the sword of the powerful, 
in a short period of time they induced multitudes 
of various nations, who were equally distin- 
guished by the peculiarity of their manners and 
the diversity of their language, to forsake the 
religion of their ancestors. The converts whom 
they made deserted ceremonies and institutions, 
which were defended by vigorous authority, 
sanctified by remote age, and associated with the 

i The collateral testimony to cortain facts mentioned in 
Scripture, from coins, medals, and ancient marbles, may- 
be seen well applied in Horne's Introduction to the Study of 
the Scriptures, vol. i. p. 238. 

2 The success of Mohammed, though sometimes pushed 
forward as a parallel, is, in fact, both as to the means em- 
ployed and the effect produced, a perfect contrast. The 
inecms were conquest and compulsion : the effect was to 
legalize and sanctify, so to speak, the natural passions of 
men for plunder ami sensual gratification; and it surely 
argues either a very frail judgment, or a criminal disposi- 
tion to object, that a contrast so marked should ever have 
habited as a correspondence. Men were persuaded, 
When they were aotforced, to join I In- ranks of tho Arabian 
tor by iIh' hope of plunder, and a present and future 
life <>r brutal gratification. Men were persuaded to join 
the apostles by tho evidenco of truth, ami by tin' hope of 
fature spiritual blessingB, but with tho certainty of prosont 
disgrace and Buffering. 



most alluring gratification of the passions." — 
Rett's Sermons at the Bampton Lecture. 

After their death the same doctrines were 
taught, and the same effects followed, though 
successive and grievous persecutions were waged 
against all who professed their faith in Christ, by 
successive emperors and inferior magistrates. 
Tacitus, about A. D. 62, speaking of Christianity, 
says, "This pernicious superstition, though 
checked for a while, broke out again, and spread 
not only over Judea, but reached the city of 
Rome also. At first they only were apprehended 
who confessed themselves to be of that sect; 
afterwards a vast multitude were discovered and 
cruelly punished." Pliny, the governor of Pon- 
tus and Bithynia, near eighty years after the 
death of Christ, in his well-known letter to 
Trajan, observes, "The contagion of this super- 
stition has not only invaded cities, but the 
smaller towns also, and the whole country." 
He speaks too of the idol temples having been 
" almost forsaken." To the same effect the Chris- 
tian fathers speak. About A. D. 140, Justin 
Martyr writes, "There is not a nation, Greek or 
Barbarian, or of any other name, even of those 
who wander in tribes, and live in tents, among 
whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered 
to the Father and Creator of the universe in the 
name of the crucified Jesus." In A. D. 190, 
Tertullian, in his Apology, appeals to the Roman 
governors — "We were but of yesterday, and we 
have filled your cities and towns, the camp, the 
senate, and the forum." In A. D. 220, Origen 
says, "By the good providence of God, the 
Christian religion has so flourished and increased, 
that it is now preached freely, and without mo- 
lestation." These representations, Gibbon con- 
tends, are exaggerations on both sides, produced 
by the fears of Pliny, and the zeal of the Chris- 
tian fathers. But even granting some degree of 
exaggeration arising not designedly from warm 
feelings, an unquestionable occurrence proves the 
futility of the exceptions taken to these state- 
ments by the elegant but infidel historian. The 
great fact is, that in the j^ear A. D. 300, Chris- 
tianity became the established religion of the Roman 
empire, and paganism was abolished; and it follows 
from this event, that the religion which thus be- 
came triumphant after unparalleled trials and 
sufferings must have established itself, previously 
to its receiving the sanction of the state, in the 
belief of a great majority of tho one hundred and 
twenty millions of people supposed to be contained 
in tho empire, or no emperor would have been 
insane enough to make tho attorn pt to change the 
religj|B of so vast a state, nor, had he made it, 
could no have succeeded. 

The succoss of Christianity in the three eentu- 



134 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I 



ries preceding Constantine, has justly been con- 
sidered as in no unimportant sense miraculous, 
and, as such, an illustrious proof of its Divinity. 
"The obstacles which opposed the first reception 
of Christianity were so numerous and formidable, 
and the human instruments employed for its 
diffusion so apparently weak and insufficient, 
that a comparison between them will not only 
show that the passions and opposition of man, 
far from impeding the Divine designs, may ulti- 
mately become the means of their perfect accom- 
plishment, but will fully demonstrate the Divine 
origin of Christianity by displaying the powerful 
assistance which the Almighty supplied for its 
establishment." (Kett's Sermons.) The aston- 
ishing success of Christianity under such circum- 
stances, and at so early a period, affords a strong 
confirmation to the truth of miracles, because it 
implies them, as no other means can be conceived 
by which an attention so general should have 
been excited to a religion which was not only 
without the sanction of authority and rank, but 
opposed by both: the scene of whose facts lay 
in a province the people of which were despised ; 
and whose doctrines held out nothing but spirit- 
ual attainments. By the effect of miracles during 
the lives of the first preachers, public curiosity 
was excited, and they obtained an audience 
which they could not otherwise have commanded. 
This power of working miracles was transmitted 
to their successors, and continued until the pur- 
poses of Infinite Wisdom were accomplished. 
They decreased in number in the second century, 
and left but a few traces at the close of the 
third. 1 The increase of Christians implied even 
more than miracles : such was the holy character 
of the majority, during the continuance of the 
reproach and persecutions which followed the 
Christian name: such the patience with which 
they suffered, and the fortitude with which they 
died, that the influence of God upon their hearts 
is as manifest in the new and hallowed character 
which distinguished them, and the meek, for- 
giving, and passive virtues which they exhibited, 
to the astonishment of the heathen, as his power 
in the miracles by which their attention was first 
drawn to examine that truth which they after- 
wards believed and held fast to death. 

The actual effect produced by this new religion 

1 Attempts have been made to deny the existence of 
miraculous powers in the ages immediately succeeding that 
of the apostles, but it stands on the unanimous and succes- 
sive testimony of the fathers. Gibbon, on this subject, has 
borrowed his objections from "The Free Inquiry" of Dr. 
Middleton, whose belief in Christianity is very suspicious. 
This book received many able answers ; but none more so 
than one by the Rev. John Wesley. It is a trJfcnph to 
truth to state, that Dr. Middleton felt himself obliged to 
give up his ground by shifting the question. 



upon society, and which it is still producing, is 
another point in the collateral evidence ; for 
Christianity has not only an adaptation for im- 
proving the condition of society : its excellence 
is not only to be argued from its effects stated on 
hypothetical circumstances ; but it has actually 
won its moral victories, and in all ages has ex- 
hibited its trophies. In every pagan country 
where it has prevailed, it has abolished idolatry, 
with its sanguinary and polluted rites. It also 
effected this mighty revolution, that the sanctions 
of religion should no longer be in favor of the 
worst passions and practices, but be directed 
against them. It has raised the standard of 
morality, and by that means, even where its full 
effects have not been suffered to display them- 
selves, has insensibly improved the manners of 
every Christian state : what heathen nations are, 
in point of morals, is now well known ; and the 
information on this subject which for several 
years past has been increasing, has put it out of 
the power of infidels to urge the superior man- 
ners of either China or Hindostan. It has abol- 
ished infanticide and human sacrifices, so prevalent 
among ancient and modern heathens : put an end 
to polygamy and divorce; and, by the institution 
of marriage in an indissoluble bond, has given 
birth to a felicity and sanctity in the domestic 
circle which it never before knew. It has ex- 
alted the condition and character of woman, and 
by that means has humanized man : given refine- 
ment and delicacy to society ; and created a new 
and important affection in the human breast — the 
love of woman founded on esteem: an affection 
generally unknown to heathens the most refined. 2 
It abolished domestic slavery in ancient Europe ; 
and from its principles the struggle which is now 
maintained with African slavery draws its energy, 
and promises a triumph as complete. It has 
given a milder character to war, and taught 
modern nations to treat their prisoners with 
humanity, and to restore them by exchange to 
their respective countries. It has laid the basis 
of a jurisprudence more just and equal : given 
civil rights to subjects, and placed restraints on 
absolute power ; and crowned its achievements 
by its charity. Hospitals, schools, and many 
other institutions for the aid of the aged and 
the poor, are almost exclusively its own creations, 
and they abound most where its influence is most 
powerful. The same effects to this day are 
resulting from its influence in those heathen 
countries into which the gospel has been carried 
by missionaries sent out from this and other 
Christian states. In some of them idolatry has 



2 Among the Greeks, the education of women was chiefly 
confined to courtezans. 



CH. XX.] 

been renounced : infants, and widows, and aged 
persons, who would have been immolated to their 
gods or abandoned by their cruelty, have been 
preserved, and are now "the living to praise its 
Divine Author, as they do at this day." In other 
instances the light is prevailing against the dark- 
ness ; and those systems of dark and sanguinary 
superstition which have stood for ages only to 
pollute and oppress, without any symptom of 
decay, now betray the shocks they have sus- 
tained by the preaching of the gospel of Christ, 
and nod to their final fall. 1 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



135 



CHAPTER XX. 

MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

The system of revealed religion contained in 
the Old and New Testaments, being opposed to 
the natural corrupt inclinations, and often to the 
actual practice of men : laying them under rules 
to which they are averse : threatening them with 
a result which they dread : holding out to them 
no pleasures but such as they distaste, and no 
advantages but those which they would gladly 
exchange for a perpetual life of sinful indul- 
gence on earth : will be regarded by many of the 
most reflecting among them as a system of re- 
straint ; and must therefore often excite either 
direct hostility, or a disposition to encourage and 
admit suggestions tending to weaken its author- 
ity. It may be added that, as the Scriptures 
cannot be known without careful examination, 
which implies a serious habit not to be found in 
the majority, objections have been often raised 
by ingenious men in great ignorance of the volume 
itself against which they'are directed ; and being 
sometimes urged on the ground of some popular 
view of a fact or doctrine, they have been received 
as carelessly as they were uttered. Philosophers 
too have sometimes constructed hasty theories 
on various subjects, which have either contra- 
dicted or been thought to contradict some parts 
of the Scriptures ; and the array of science, and 
the fascination of novelty, have equally deceived 
and misled the theorist himself and his disciples. 
Since the revival of letters, and in countries 
where freedom of discussion has been allowed, 
objectors have arisen, and numerous attempts 
have been made to shake the faith of mankind. 
That specious kind of infidelity known by the 
name of "Deism," made its appearance in Italy 

1 For an ample illustration of tho actual effects of Chris- 
tian iiy upon society, soo Bishop Porteus's Beneficial Effects 
of Christianity, and Ryan's History of the Effects of Religion 
on Mankind. 



and France about the middle of the sixteenth 
century, and in England early in the seventeenth. 
Under thi3 appellation, and that of "The Reli- 
gion of Nature," each adopted to deceive the 
unwary, the attack upon Christianity was at first 
cautious, and accompanied with many professions 
of regard for its manifold excellences. Lord 
Herbert, of Cherbury, was the first who in this 
country advocated this system. He lays down 
five primary articles of religion, as containing 
every thing necessary to be believed ; and as he 
contends they are all discoverable by our natural 
faculties, they supersede, he informs us, the 
necessity of a revelation. They are — that there 
is a supreme God — that he is chiefly to be wor- 
shipped — that piety and virtue are the principal 
part of his worship — that repentance expiates 
offence — and that there is a state of future 
rewards and punishments. The history of infi- 
delity from this time is a striking comment upon 
the words of St. Paul, "But evil men and seducers 
shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being 
deceived;" for, in the progress of this deadly 
error, all Lord Herbert's five articles of natural 
religion have been questioned or given up by 
those who followed him in his fundamental prin- 
ciple, "that nothing can be admitted which is 
not discoverable by our natural faculties." 
Hobbes, who succeeded next in this warfare 
against the Bible, if he acknowledges that there 
is a God, represents him as corporeal, and our 
duty to him as a chimera, the civil magistrate 
being supreme in all things both civil and sacred. 
Shaftesbury insists that the doctrine of rewards 
and punishments is degrading to the understand- 
ing and detrimental to moral virtue. Hume de- 
nies the relation between cause and effect, and 
thus attempts to overthrow the argument for the 
existence of God from the frame of the universe. 
By others the worship of God, which Lord Her- 
bert advocates, has been rejected as unreasonable, 
because he needs not our praises, and is not to 
be turned from his purposes by our prayers. As 
all law, of Divine authority, is on this system 
renounced, so " piety and virtue" must be under- 
stood to be what every man chooses to consider 
them, which amounts to their annihilation ; and 
as for future reward and punishment, philosophy, 
since Lord Herbert's days, has discovered that 
the soul of man is material ; or rather, being a 
mere result of the organization of the body, that 
it dies with it. The great principle of the 
English proto-infidel, "the sufficiency of our 
natural faculties to form a religion for ourselves, 
and to decide upon the merits of revealed truth," 
is, however, the principle of all; and this being 
once conceded, the instances just given are suffi- 
ciently in proof that the eablc is slipped, and 



136 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



that every one is left to take his course wherever 
the winds and the currents may impel his un- 
piloted, uncharted, and uncompassed bark. This 
grand principle of error, between which and 
absolute Atheism there are but a few steps, has 
been largely refuted in the foregoing pages, and 
the claims of the Holy Scriptures to be con- 
sidered as a revelation from God, established by 
arguments, the force of which in all other cases 
is felt, and acknowledged, and acted upon even 
by unbelievers themselves. If this has been 
done satisfactorily, the objections which remain 
are of little weight, were they even less capable 
of being repelled ; and if no answer can be found 
to some of the difficulties which may be urged, 
this circumstance is much more in accordance 
with the truth of a revelation, than it would be 
with its falsehood. "We do not deny," says an 
excellent writer on the evidences of Christianity, 
(Dr. Olinthus Gregory,) "that the scheme of 
revelation has its difficulties ; for if the things 
of nature are often difficult to comprehend, it 
would be strange indeed if supernatural matters 
were so simple, and obvious, and suited to finite 
capacities, as never to startle and puzzle us at all. 
He who denies the Bible to have come from God be- 
cause of these difficulties, may for exactly the same 
reason deny that the world was formed by him." 

The mere cavils of infidel writers may be 
hastily dismissed : the most plausible objections 
shall be considered more at large. As to the 
former, few of them could have been urged if 
those who have adduced them had consulted the 
works of commentators and biblical critics — 
writings with which it is evident they have little 
acquaintance ; and thus they have shown how ill 
disposed they have been to become fully ac- 
quainted with the subjects which they have 
subjected to their criticism. To this may be 
added their ignorance of the idiom of the 
Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament; 
their inattention to the ancient manners and 
customs of the countries where the sacred writers 
lived; to occasional errors in the transcription 
of numerous copies, which may be rectified by 
collation; and to the different readings, which, 
to a candid criticism, would generally furnish 
the solution of the difficulty. 

The Bible has been vehemently assaulted, 
because it represents God as giving command to 
the Israelites to exterminate the nations of 
Canaan ; but a few remarks will be sufficient to 
prove how little weight there is in the charges 
which, on this account, have been made against 
the author of the Pentateuch. The objection 
cannot be argued upon the mere ground that it 
is contrary to the Divine justice or mercy to cut 
off a people indiscriminately, from the eldest to 



the youngest, since this is done in earthquakes, 
pestilences, etc. The cholera morbus, which has 
been for four years past wasting various parts of 
Asia, has probably destroyed half a million of 
persons of all ages. The character of the God 
of nature is not therefore contradicted by that 
ascribed to the God of the Bible. The whole 
objection resolves itself into this question: Was 
it consistent with the character of God to employ 
human agents in this work of destruction ? Y/ho 
can prove that it was not ? No one ; and yet 
here lies the whole stress of the objection. The 
Jews were not rendered more cruel by their 
being so commissioned, for we find them much 
more merciful in their institutions than other 
ancient nations ; nor can this instance be pleaded 
in favor of exterminating wars, for there was in 
the case a special commission for a special pur- 
pose, and by that it was limited. Other consi- 
derations are also to be included. The sins of 
the Canaanites were of so gross a nature, that 
it was necessary to mark them with signal 
punishments, for the benefit of surrounding 
nations : the employing of the Israelites, as 
instruments under a special and publicly pro- 
claimed commission, connected the punishment 
more visibly with the offence than if it had been 
inflicted by the array of warring elements, while 
the Israelites themselves would be more deeply 
impressed with the guilt of idolatry, and its ever- 
accompanying polluted and sanguinary rites ; 
and finally, the Canaanites had been long spared, 
and in the meantime both warned by partial 
judgments, and reproved by the remaining adhe- 
rents of the patriarchal religion who resided 
among them. 

Thus the objection rests upon no foundation. 
The destruction of infants, so often dwelt upon, 
takes place in nature and providence : the objec- 
tion to the employment of human agents, arising 
from habits of inhumanity being thereby induced, 
assumes what is false in fact; for this effect upon 
the Jews was prevented by the circumstance of 
their knowing that they acted as ministers of the 
Divine displeasure, and under his commission ; 
and some important reasons may be discovered 
for executing the judgment by men, and espe- 
cially this, that it might exhibit the evil of a 
sanguinary and obscene idolatry. 

That law in Deuteronomy which authorizes 
parents, the father and the mother, to bring "a 
stubborn and rebellious son," who was also "a 
glutton and a drunkard," before the elders of the 
city, that, if guilty, he might be stoned, has been 
called inhuman and brutal. In point of fact, it 
was, however, a merciful regulation. In almost 
all ancient nations, parents had the power of 
taking away the lives of their children. This 



CH. XX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



137 



was a branch of the old patriarchal authority 
which did not all at once merge into the kingly 
governments which were afterwards established. 
There is reason, therefore, to believe that it was 
possessed by the heads of families among the 
Israelites, and that this was the first attempt to 
control it, by obliging the crimes alleged against 
their children to be proved before regular magis- 
trates, and thus preventing the effects of un- 
bridled passions. 

The intentional offering of Isaac by Abraham 
has also had its share of censure. The answer 
is, 1. That Abraham, who was in the habit of 
sensible communication with God, could have no 
doubt of the Divine command, and of the right 
of God to take away the life he had given. 2. 
That he proceeded to execute the command of 
God, in faith, as the Apostle Paul has stated, 
that God would raise his son from the dead. The 
whole transaction was extraordinary, and cannot 
therefore be judged by common rules; and it 
could only be fairly objected to, if it had been so 
stated as to encourage human sacrifices. Here, 
however, are sufficient guards : an indubitable 
Divine command was given: the sacrifice was 
prevented by the same authority ; and the his- 
tory stands in a book which represents human 
sacrifices as an abomination to God. 

Indelicacy and immodesty have been charged 
upon some parts of the Scriptures. This objec- 
tion has something in it which indicates malignity 
rather than an honest and principled exception ; 
for in no instance are any statements made in 
order to incite impurity ; and nothing, through- 
out the whole Scripture, is represented as more 
offensive to God, or as more certainly excluding 
persons from the kingdom of heaven, than the 
unlawful gratification of the senses. It is also 
to be noted, that many of the passages objected 
to are in the laws and prohibitions of both Testa- 
ments ; and as well might the statute and common 
law of this country be the subject of reprehen- 
sion, and be held up as tending to encourage 
vices of various kinds, because they must, with 
more or less of circumstantiality, describe them. 
We are further to take into account the simpli- 
city of manners and language in early times. 
We observe, even among the peasantry of modern 
states, a language, on the subjects referred to, 
which is more direct, and what refined society 
would call gross ; but greater real indelicacy does 
not necessarily follow. Countries and classes of 
people might bo pointed out, where the language 
which expresses sensual indulgence has more of 
caution and of periphrasis, while the known facts 
show that their morals are exceedingly polluted. 

Several objections which have been raised 
against characters and transactions in the books 



of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, are dissipated by 
the single consideration that where they are 
obviously immoral or unjustifiable, they are never 
approved, and are merely stated as facts of his- 
tory. The conduct of Ehud, of Samson, and of 
Jephthah, may be given as instances. 

The advice of David, when on his death-bed, 
respecting Joab and Shimei, has been attributed 
to his private resentment. This is not the fact. 
He spoke in his character of king and magistrate, 
and gave his advice on public grounds, as com- 
mitting the kingdom to his son. 

The conduct of David, also, towards the Am- 
monites, inputting them "under saws and harrows 
of iron," has been the subject of severe animad- 
version. But the expression means no more than 
that he employed them in laborious works, as 
sawing, making iron harrows, hewing wood, and 
making bricks, the Hebrew prefix signifying to as 
well as under. " He put them to saws and harrows 
of iron, (some render it iron mines,) and to axes 
of iron, and made them to pass through the brick- 
kiln." 

With respect to the imprecations found in many 
parts of Scripture, and which have been repre- 
sented as expressions of revenge and malice, it- 
has been often and satisfactorily observed, that 
they are predictions and not anathemas, the 
imperative mood being put for the future tense, 
according to the Hebrew idiom. 

These have been adduced as specimens of the 
objections urged by infidel writers against the 
Scriptures, and of the ease with which they may 
be met. For others of a similar kind, and for 
answers to objections founded upon supposed 
contradictions between different passages of 
Scripture, reference must be made to commen- 
tators. 1 With respect to all of them, it has been 
well observed, "that a little skill in the original 
languages of the Scriptures, their idioms and 
properties, and in the times, occasions, and scope 
of the several books, as well as in the antiquities 
and customs of those countries which were the 
scenes of the transactions recorded, will always 
clear the main difficulties." 

To some other objections of a philosophical 
kind, as being of a more imposing aspect, the 
answers may be more extended. 

Between natural philosophy and revelation — 
the book of nature and the book of God — it 
has been a favorite practice with unbelievers to 
institute a contrast, and to set the plainness 
and uncontradictory character of tho one against 
the mysteries and difficulties of the other. The 
common ground on which all such objections 

1 Sco also a copious collection of theso Bupposed contra- 
dictions, with judioionB explanations} In the Appendix to 
vol. i. of Houses Introduction, etc. 






138 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



rest, is an unwillingness to admit as truth, and 
to receive as established and authorized doctrine, 
what is incomprehensible. They contend, that 
if a revelation has been made, there can be 
no mystery in it, for that is a contradiction ; and 
that if mysteries, that is, things incomprehen- 
sible, are held to be a part of it, this is fatal to 
its claims as a revelation. The sophism is easily 
answered. Many doctrines, many duties, are 
comprehensible enough: no mystery at all is 
involved in them; and as to incomprehensible 
subjects, nothing is more undoubted, as we have 
already shown, than that a fact may be the 
subject of revelation, as that God is eternal and 
omnipresent, and still remain mysterious and 
incomprehensible. The fact itself is not hidden, 
or expressed in language or symbol so equivocal 
as to throw the meaning into difficulty, the only 
sense in which the argument could be valid. 
As a fact, it is clearly revealed that these are 
attributes of the Divine Nature ; but both, not- 
withstanding that clear and indubitable revela- 
tion, are still incomprehensible. It is not 
revealed how God is eternal and omnipresent, 
nor is such a revelation pretended ; but it is 
revealed that He is so — not how a trinity of 
persons exists in unity of essence; but that 
such is the mode of the Divine existence. If, 
however, men hesitate to admit incomprehensible 
subjects as matters of faith, they cannot be per- 
mitted to fly for relief from revelation to 
philosophy, and much less to set up its superior 
claims, as to clearness of manifestation, to the 
Holy Scriptures. There too, it will be seen, 
that mystery and revelation go inseparably to- 
gether : that he who will not admit the mystery 
cannot have the benefit of the revelation ; and 
that he who takes the revelation of facts, em- 
braces at the same time the mystery of their 
causes. The facts, for instance, of the attraction 
of gravitation, of cohesion, of electricity, of 
magnetism, of congelation, of thawing, of evapo- 
ration, are all admitted. The experimental and 
inductive philosophy of modern times has 
made many revelations of the relations and in 
some instances of the proximate causes of these 
phenomena ; but the real causes are all con- 
fessedly hidden. With respect to mechanics, 
says a writer who has devoted his life to philoso- 
phical studies, (Dr. Gregory's Letters on the 
Christian Religion,) "this science is conversant 
about force, matter, time, motion, space : each of 
these has occasioned the most elaborate dis- 
quisitions, and the most violent disputes. Let it 
be asked, What is force ? If ^he answerer be 
candid, his reply will be, ' I cannot tell so as to 
satisfy every inquirer, or so as to enter into the 
essence of the thing.' Again, What is matter 9 



'I cannot tell.' What is motion? 'I cannot 
tell;'" and so of the rest. "The fact of the 
communication of motion from one body to an- 
other, is as inexplicable as the communication 
of Divine influences. How, then, can the former 
be admitted with any face, while the latter is 
denied solely on the ground of its incomprehen- 
sibility ? 

"But perhaps I may be told, that although 
things which are incomprehensible occur in 
our physical and mixed inquiries, they have no 
place in 'pure mathematics, where all is not 
only demonstrable, but intelligible.' This, again, 
is an assertion which I cannot admit ; and for 
the denial of which I shall beg leave to pro- 
duce my reasons, as this will, I apprehend, make 
still more in favor of my general argument. 
Now, here it is known, geometricians can de- 
monstrate that there are curves which approach 
continually to some fixed right line, without the 
possibility of ever meeting it. Such, for ex- 
ample, are hyperbolas, which continually ap- 
proach toward their asymptotes, but cannot 
possibly meet them, unless an assignable finite 
space can become equal to nothing. Such, 
again, are conchoids, which continually approach 
to their directrices, yet can never meet them, 
unless a certain point can be both beyond and in 
contact with a given line at the same moment. 
Mathematicians can also demonstrate that a 
space infinite in one sense, may, by its rotation, 
generate a solid of finite capacity ; as is the case 
with the solid formed by the rotation of a 
logarithmic curve of infinite length upon its 
axis, or that formed by the rotation of an Apol- 
lonian hyperbola upon its asymptote. They can 
also show, in numerous instances, that a variable 
space shall be continually augmenting, and yet 
never become equal to a certain finite quantity; 
and they frequently make transformations with 
great facility and neatness, by means of ex- 
pressions to which no definite ideas can be 
attached. Can we, for example, obtain any 
clear comprehension, or indeed any notion at all, 
of the value of a power whose exponent is an 
acknowledged imaginary quantity, as x >J — 1 ? 
Can we, in like manner, obtain any distinct idea 
of a series constituted of an infinite number of 
terms? In each case the answer, I am con- 
vinced, must be in the negative. Yet the science 
in which these and numerous other incomprehen- 
sibles occur, is called Mathesis, the discipline, 
because of its incomparable superiority to other 
studies in evidence and certainty, and, there- 
fore, its singular adaptation to discipline the 
mind. How does it happen, now, that when the 
investigation is bent toward objects which cannot 
be comprehended, the mind arrives at that in 



CH. XX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



139 



•which it acquiesces as certainty, and rests satis- 
fied ? It is not, manifestly, because we have a 
distinct perception of the nature of the objects 
of the inquiry; (for that is precluded by the 
supposition, and, indeed, by the preceding state- 
ment;) but because we have such a distinct per- 
ception of the relation which those objects bear 
one towards another, and can assign positively, 
without danger of error, the exact relation, as 
to identity or diversity, of the quantities before 
us, at every step of the process." 

Modern astronomy has displayed the immense 
extent of the universe, and by analogical rea- 
soning has made it probable, at least, that the 
planets of our and of other systems may be in- 
habited by rational and moral beings like our- 
selves ; and from these premises infidel philoso- 
phy has argued with apparent humility for the 
insignificance of the human race, and the im- 
probability of supposing that a Divine person 
should have been sent into this world for its 
instruction and salvation, when, in comparison 
with the solar system, it is but a point, and that 
system itself, in comparison of the universe, may 
be nothing more. 

Plausible as this may appear, nothing can 
have less weight, even if only the philosophy 
and not the theology of the case be taken into 
consideration. The intention with which man 
is thus compared with the universe is to prove 
his insignificance ; and the comparison must be 
made either between man and the vasiness of 
planetary and stellar matter, or between the 
number of mankind, and the number of supposed 
planetary inhabitants. If the former, we may 
reply, with Dr. Beattie, " Great extent is a thing 
so striking to our imagination, that sometimes, 
in the moment of forgetfulness, we are apt to 
think nothing can be important but what is of 
vast corporeal magnitude. And yet, even to our 
apprehension, when we are willing to be rational, 
how much more sublime and more interesting 
an object is a mind like that of Newton, than the 
unwieldy force and brutal stupidity of such a 
monster as the poets describe Polyphemus? 
Who, that had it in his power, would scruple to 
destroy a whale in order to save a child ? Nay, 
when compared with the happiness of one im- 
mortal mind, the greatest imaginable accumula- 
tion of inanimate substance must appear an 
insignificant thing. 'If we consider,' says 
Bentley, 'the dignity of an intelligent being, 
and put that in the scale against brute and in- 
animate matter, we may affirm, without over- 
valuing human nature, that the soul of one 
virtuous man is of greater worth and excellency 
than the *un and his planets, and all the stars in 
the world.' Let us not then mako bulk the 



standard of value ; or judge of the importance 
of man from the weight of his body, or from the 
size or situation of the planet that is now his 
place of abode." 

To the same effect an ingenious and acute 
writer remarks upon a passage in Saussure, 
(Voyages dans les Alpes,) who speaks of men in 
the phrase of the modern philosophy, as "the 
little beings which crawl upon the surface of the 
earth," and as shrinking into nothing, both as to 
"space and time," in comparison with the vast 
mountains and "the great epochas of nature." 
"If," says Mr. Granville Penn, (Comparative 
Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaic Geologies,) 
"there is any sense or virtue in this reflection, 
it must consist in duly estimating the relative 
importance of the two magnitudes and durations, 
and in concluding, logically, the comparative 
insignificancy of the smaller. And it will then 
necessarily follow, that the insignificancy of the 
smaller would lessen, in the same proportion 
in which it might increase in bulk. If the little 
beings therefore were to be magnified in the 
proportions of 2, 3, 4, etc., their insignificancy, 
relatively to the great features of the globe, 
would necessarily diminish in the same ratio. 
The smaller the disproportion between the man 
and the mountain, the less would be the rela- 
tive insignificance of the former ; and although 
the increase of magnitude in the smaller object 
be ever so inconsiderable, yet if it is positive and 
real, its dignity must be proportionately increased 
in the true nature of things : the bigger the being 
that crawls upon the surface of this globe, the 
less absurd would be the supposition that he is 
the final object of this terrestrial creation. The 
Irish giant, therefore, whose altitude exceeded 
the measure of eight feet, would exceed in rela- 
tive dignity, by the same proportion, Bacon and 
Newton, whose height did not attain to six 
feet. If this is nonsense, then must that also 
be nonsense from which it is the genuine conclu- 
sion : namely, that the material magnitudes of 
the little beings, or their duration upon the earth 
on which they 'crawl,' determines, in any 
manner, their importance, in the creation, rela- 
tively to the primordial mountains which arise 
above it, or to the extent of the regions which 
may be surveyed from their summits. For if 
the same physically small beings possess another 
magnitude, which can be brought to another and 
a different scale of computation from that of 
physical or material magnitude — a scale infinitely 
surpassing in importance the greatest measures 
of that magnitude — then there will he nothing 
astonishing or irrational in the supposition 
that the highest mountains, and the widest 
regions, and the entire system to which they 



140 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



pertain, may be subservient to the ends of those 
-jeings, and to that other syston to which they 
pertain; which latter will thus be found superior 
in importance to the former. Such a scale is 
that by which the intelligent, moral, and immortal 
nature of man is to be measured, and which the 
sacred historian calls a formation ' after the 
image and likeness of God :' a scale so little taken 
into the contemplation of the science of mere 
physics. As soon, however, as that moral scale 
of magnitude once supersedes the physical scale 
in the apprehension of the mind : as soon as the 
mind perceives that the duration of that intelli- 
gent moral nature infinitely exceeds the vastest 
' epocha of nature 1 which the imagination of the 
mineral geology can represent to itself, and that, 
though the physical nature of man is limited to 
a very small measure of time, yet his moral 
nature is unlimited in time, and will outlast all 
the mountains of the globe : it then perceives, 
at the same moment, the counterfeit quality of 
the reflection which at first appeared so sublime 
and so humble, so profound and so devout. 
The sublimity and humility betray themselves 
to be the disparagement and degradation of our 
nature : the profundity is found to be mere sur- 
face, and the devotion to be a retrocession from 
the light of revelation." 

If the comparison of man with mere material 
magnitude will not, then, support this effort to 
effect his degradation, and to shame him out of 
his trust in the loving-kindness of his God : if 
the comparison be made between things which 
have no relations in common, and is therefore 
absurd: as little will it serve this unnatural 
attempt to prostrate man to an insect rank, and 
to inspire him with reptile feelings, to conclude 
his insignificance from the number of other 
beings. For it is plain that their number alters 
not his real character: he is still immortal, 
though myriads beside him are immortal, and 
still he has his deep capacity of pleasure and of 
pain. Unless, therefore, it could be proved that 
the care of God for each must be diminished as 
the number of his creatures is increased, there 
is, as Mr. Penn has stated it, neither "sense nor 
virtue" in such reflections upon the littleness of 
man ; and they imply, indeed, a base and an un- 
worthy reflection upon the supreme Creator him- 
self, as though he could not bestow upon all the 
beings he has made a care and a love adequate 
to their circumstances. What man is with re- 
spect to God, can only be collected from the 
Divine procedures towards him ; and these are 
sufficient to excite the devout exclamations of 
the Psalmist, " What is man, that thou art mixd- 
pul of him ? or the son of man, that thou visitest 
him ?" That he has not only been made by God, 



but that he is governed by his providence, none 
but Atheists will deny ; but any argument drawn 
from such premises as the above would conclude 
as forcibly against providence as it can be made 
to conclude against redemption. < ' Our Saviour," 
says Dr. Beattie, "as if to obviate objections of 
this nature, expresses most emphatically the 
superintending care of Providence, when he 
teaches that it is God who adorns the grass of 
the field, that without him a sparrow falls not on 
the ground, and that even the hairs of our head 
are numbered. Yet this is no exaggeration; but 
must, if God is omniscient and almighty, be liter- 
ally true. By a stupendous exuberance of ani- 
mal, vegetable, and mineral production, and by 
an apparatus still more stupendous (if that were 
possible) for the distribution of light and heat, 
he supplies the means of life and comfort to the 
short-lived inhabitants of this globe. Can it then 
appear incredible — nay, .does not this considera- 
tion render it in the highest degree probable, that 
he has also prepared the means of eternal happi- 
ness for beings whom he has formed for eternal 
duration, whom he has endowed with faculties so 
noble as those of the human soul, and for whose 
accommodation, chiefly, during their present 
state of trial, he has provided all the magnifi- 
cence of this sublunary world ?" 

There is, however, another consideration, which 
gives a sublime and overwhelming grandeur to 
the Scripture view of the redemption of the race 
of man, and of which, for the want of acquaint- 
ance with our sacred writings, infidel philoso- 
phers appear never to have entertained the least 
conception. It is the moral connection of this 
world with the whole universe of intelligent 
creatures; and the "intention" there was in the 
Divine mind to convey to other beings, by the 
history and great results of his moral govern- 
ment over one branch of his universal family, a 
view of his own perfections; of the duties and 
dangers of created and finite beings ; of trans- 
gression and holiness, in their principles and in 
their effects ; by a course of action so much more 
influential than abstract truth. Intimations of 
this great and impressive view are found in vari- 
ous passages of the New Testament, and it opens 
a scene of inconceivable moral magnificence — 
"To the intent that now unto the principalities and 
powers in heavenly places might be known by the 
Church the manifold wisdom of God." 1 

1 " In this our first period of existence, our eye cannot 

penetrate beyond the present scene, and the human race 

appears one great and separate community; but with other 

worlds, and other communities, we probably may, and every 

argument for the truth of our religion gives us reason to 

j think that we shall, be connected hereafter. And if by 

j our behavior we may, even while here, as our Lord posi- 

i tively affirms, heighten in some degree the felicity of 



CH. XX.] 

It has been objected to the Mosaic chronology, 
that it fixes the era of creation only about four 
thousand years earlier than the Christian era; 
and against this, evidence has been brought from 
two sources — the chronology of certain ancient 
nations, and the structure of the earth. 

The objections drawn from the former of these 
sources have of late rapidly weakened, and are 
in fact given up by many whose deference to the 
authority of Scripture is very slight, though but 
a few years ago nothing was more confidently 
urged by skeptical writers than the refutation of 
Moses by the Chinese, Hindoo, and Egyptian 
chronologies, founded, as it wa3 then stated, on 
very ancient astronomical observations preserved 
to the present day. It is, however, now clearly 
proved that the astronomical tables, from which 
it has been attempted to assign a prodigious 
antiquity to the Hindoos, have been calculated 
backward; (Cuvier's Theory of the Earth;) and 
among the Chinese the 'earliest astronomical 
observation that appears to rest upon good 
grounds, is now found to be one made not more 
than two thousand nine hundred years ago. 
(Cuvier's Theory of the Earth.) As for the con- 
clusion drawn from the supposed zodiacs in 
the temples of Esneh and Dendera in Egypt, it 
is now strongly doubted whether the figures re- 
presented upon them are astronomical or mytho- 
logical, that is, whether they are zodiacs at all. 
Their astronomical character is strongly denied 
by Dr. Richardson, a late traveller, who exam- 
ined them with great care ; and who gives large 
reasons for his opinion. Even if the astrono- 
mical character of these assumed zodiacs be 
allowed, they are found to prove nothing. M. 
Biot, an eminent French mathematician, has 
recently fixed the date of the oldest of them at 
only seven hundred and sixteen years before 
Christ, 

Against the excessive antiquity assigned to 
some ancient states, or claimed by them, the 
science of geology has at length entered its pro- 
test ; and though, as we shall presently see, it 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



141 



angels, our salvation may hereafter be a matter of import- 
ance, not to us only, but to many other orders of immortal 
beings. They, it is true, will not suffer for our guilt, nor 
be rewarded for our obedience. But it is not absurd to 
imagine that our fall and recovery may bo useful to them 
as an example; and that tho Divine grace manifested in 
<>ur redemption may raise their adoration and gratitude 
tigher raptures, and quicken their ardor to inquire, 
With ever new delight, into tho dispensations of infinite 
Wisdom. This is not mere conjecture. It derives plausi- 
bility from many analogies in nature, as well as from Holy 
Writ, which represents tho mystery of our redemption as 
an object of curiosity to superior beings, and our repent- 
ance as :ni occasion or tholr joy."— Dr. Beattds's Evidences 
Christian /.'< ligion. Bee also Dn. CHAlMaaa'a Dis- 
courses on the Modern Astronomy, 



has originated chronological objections to the 
Mosaic date of the creation, on the origin of 
nations it has made a full concession to the his- 
tory of the Scriptures. Cuvier observes: "By 
a careful investigation of what has taken place 
on the surface of the globe since it has been laid 
dry for the last time, and its continents have 
assumed their present form, at least in such 
parts as are somewhat elevated above the level 
of the ocean, it may be clearly seen that this 
revolution, and consequently the establishment 
of our existing societies, could not have been 
very ancient." [Theory of the Earth.) D'Au- 
buisson remarks, " that the soils of all the plains 
were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; 
that their actual order is only to be dated from 
the retreat of that water ; and that the date of 
that period is not very ancient." [Traite de 
Geognosie.) "Dolomieu, Saussure, De Luc, and 
the most distinguished naturalists of the age, 
have coincided in this conclusion, to which they 
have been led by the evidence of various monu- 
ments and natural chronometers which the earth 
exhibits ; and which remain perpetual vouchers 
for the veracity of the Mosaic chronology, with 
respect to the epocha of the revolution which 
the Mosaical history relates." * 

From the absence of all counter evidence in 
the records of ancient nations, as well as from 
these philosophical conclusions, which are to be 
considered in the light of concessions made to the 
chronology of the Pentateuch, we may there- 
fore conclude that, as to the origin of nations 
and the period of the general deluge, the testi- 
mony of Scripture remains unshaken. 

Geology has, however, objected to the Mosaic 
date of the creation of the earth, which it is said 
affords a period too limited to account for vari- 
ous phenomena which modern researches have 
brought under consideration. To the last general 
inundation of the earth, it is allowed that no 
higher a date can be assigned than that which 
Moses ascribes to the flood of Noah ; but several 
revolutions, each of which has changed the sur- 
face of the earth, are contended for, separated 



1 Penn*s Comparative Estimate, etc. Professor Jamieson, 
in his Mineralogical Illustrations of Cuvier's Theory. obr 
serves, "Tho front of Salisbury Craigs, near Edinburgh, 
affords a fine examplo of tho natural chronometer, de- 
scribed in the text. The acclivity is covered with loose 
masses that have fallen from the hill itself; and the 
quantity of debris is in proportion to the time which has 
elapsed since the waters of the ocean formerly covered the 
neighboring country. If a vast period of time had elapsed 
since tho surface of the earth had assumed its present 
aspect, it is evident that long ere HOW the whole of this 
hil! would have been enveloped in its own debris, We 
have here then a proof of the comparatively short period 
since i lie waters left the surface of tho globe, — a period 
not exceeding a few thousand years." 



142 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



from each other by long intervals of time ; and, 
above all, it is assumed that the elements of the 
primitive earths were contained in an "original 
chaotic fluid," and that, in obeying the laws of 
the affinity of composition, they coalesced and 
grouped themselves together in different man- 
ners, and settled themselves into order, accord- 
ing to certain laws of matter, after an unassignable 
series of ages. These are the views of Cuvier, 
D'Aubuisson, De Luc, and other eminent writers 
on this subject; and whatever they themselves 
might intend, they have been made use of by 
infidels to discredit the authority of the sa- 
cred historian. It has been replied that the 
Bible not being intended to teach philosophy, 
it is not fair to try it by a philosophical standard. 
This, however, cannot be maintained in the case 
before us, though the observation is pertinent in 
others, as when the sun is said to have stood 
still, popular language being adopted to render 
the Scriptures intelligible. If Moses professes 
by Divine inspiration to give an account of the 
manner in which the world was framed, he must 
describe the facts as they occurred ; and if he 
has assigned a date to its creation out of nothing, 
that date, if given by an infallible authority, 
cannot be contradicted by true philosophy. 

To allow time sufficient for the gradual pro- 
cesses of "precipitation and crystallization," by 
which the first formations of the solid earth are 
said to have been effected, others have conceded 
to the geologists of this class, that an antiquity 
of the earth much higher than that which ap- 
pears on the face of the Mosaic account may be 
allowed without contradicting it, and be even 
deduced from it. They, therefore, interpret the 
"days" mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis 
as successive periods of ages, and the evening 
and morning of those days are made the begin- 
nings and ends of those imagined periods. 1 This 
interpretation is, however, too forced to be ad- 
mitted in the case of so simple a narrative as 
that of Moses ; and there would be as good a 
reason for thus extending the duration of the 
term "day" whenever it occurs in his writings 
to an indefinite period, to the destruction of all 
chronological accuracy and of all sobriety of 
writing. No true friend of revelation will wish 
to see Moses defended against the assaults of 
philosophy in a manner which, by obliging us to 
find a meaning in his writings far remote from 

1 " Most readers have presumed that every night and 
day mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis must be 
strictly confined to the term of twenty-four hours, though 
there can be no doubt that Moses never intended any such 
thing; for how could Moses intend to limit the dura- 
tion of the day to its present length, before, according to 
his own showing, the sun had begun to divide the day from 
the night?"— Mantell's Geology of Sussex. 



[part I. 

the view of general readers, would render them 
inapplicable to the purpose of ordinary instruc- 
tion. Besides, if we are to understand the first 
day to have been of indefinite length, a hundred, 
or a thousand, or a million of years, for instance, 
why not the seventh, the Sabbath, also ? This 
opinion cannot, therefore, be consistently main- 
tained, and we must conclude with Rosenmuller, 
"Dies intelligendi sunt naturales, quorum unus- 
quisque ab una vespera incipiens, altera ter- 
minatur; quo modo Judsei, et multi alii anti- 
quissimi populi, dies numerarunt — that we are to 
understand natural days: each of which com- 
mencing from one evening is terminated by the 
next; in which manner the Jews, and many 
others of the most ancient nations, reckoned 
days." 

By other believers in revelation who have 
allowed the two principles laid down by geolo- 
gists to go unquestioned, viz., the original liquid- 
ity of the earth, holding the elements of all the 
subsequent formations in a state of solution; 
and the necessity of a long course of ages to 
complete those processes by which the earth 
should be brought into a fit state, so to speak, 
for the work of the six days, which in that case 
must be confined to mere arrangement — another, 
and certainly a less objectionable interpretation 
of Moses than that which makes his natural days 
and nights terms for indefinite periods of time, 
has been adopted. "Does Moses ever sap 7 that 
when God created the heavens and the earth, he 
did more at the time alluded to than transform 
them out of previously existing materials ? Or 
does he ever say that there was not an interval 
of many ages between the first act of creation, 
described in the first verse of the book of Gene- 
sis, and said to have been performed at the be- 
ginning, and those more detailed operations the 
account of which commences at the second verse, 
and which are described to us as having been 
performed in so many days? Or, finally, does 
he ever make us to understand that the genealo- 
gies of man went any farther than to fix the 
antiquity of the species, and, of consequence, 
that they left the antiquity of the globe a free 
subject for the speculations of philosophers? 
We do not pledge ourselves for the truth of one 
or all of these suppositions, nor is it necessary 
we should. It is enough that any of them is 
infinitely more rational than the rejection of 
Christianity in the face of its historical evidence." 
(Chalmers's Evidences of the Christian Revelation.) 
"As to the period when this mass was made, 
Moses only says that it was 'in the beginning,' — 
a period, this, which might have been a million 
of years before its arrangement." — Mantell's 
Geology of Sussex. 



CH. XX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



143 



To all these suppositions, though not unsup- 
ported by the authority of some great critics, 1 
there are considerable objections; and if the 
difficulty of reconciling geological phenomena 
with the Mosaic chronology were greater than it 
appears, none of them ought hastily to be ad- 
mitted. That creation, in the first verse of 
Genesis, signifies production out of nothing, and 
not out of pre-existent matter, though the 
original word may be used in both senses, is 
made a matter of faith by the Apostle Paul, who 
tells us, "that the things which are seen were not 
made of things which do appear ;" /it) en fyaivojuevcov 
tu. jiTiETzojieva yeyovevai ; which is sufficient to 
settle that point. By the same important passage 
it is also determined, that "the worlds were pro- 
duced in their form, as well as substance, instantly 
out of nothing; or it would not be true that 
they were not made of things which do appear." 
"The apostle states that these things were not 
made out of a pre-existent matter ; for, if they 
were, that matter, however extended or modified, 
must appear in that thing into which it is com- 
pounded and modified : therefore it could not be 
said, that the things which are seen, are not made 
of things that appear ; and he shows us also, by 
these words, that the present mundane fabric 
was not formed or re-formed from one anterior, 
as some suppose." (Dr. A. Clarke in loc.) No 
interval of time is allowed in the account of the 
creation by Moses, between the creating and the 
framing of the worlds, (that is, the heavens and 
the earth simply, ) so created and framed at once 
by the word of God. The natural sense too of 
the phrase "in the beginning,'''' is also thus pre- 
served. Thrown back, so to speak, into eternity 
without reference to time, it has no meaning, or 
at best a very obscure one ; but connected with 
time, the commencement of our mundane chro- 
nology, it has a definite and obvious sense. 
Moses begins his reckoning from the first creative 
act — from the creation of the "heavens and the 
earth," which was therefore a part of the work 
of the first natural day. "In the first of these 
natural days, the whole mineral fabric of this 
globe was formed at once, of such size and 
figure, with such properties, in such proportions 
to space, and with such arrangement of its 



1 Among tho authorities claimed for this view are Justin 
Martyr, Origin, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustln, and 
Theodoret. By referring "tho beginning" to a period 
remotely anterior to the first demiurgic day, they afford a 
margin largo enough for all tho time demanded by geolo- 
gists for the changes which have taken place In the crust 
Of the earth. Luther, Calvin, Episcopius, Bishop Patrick, 
luni an Increasing number of modern divines, think tho six 
toys' work begins ai the third verso of Gen. i. Others 
■till contend for the interpretation defended by tho author. 
— [Editor. 



materials, as most conduced to the ends for which 
God created it." 2 

It will now be observed, that if such interpre- 
tations of the Mosaic account cannot be allowed, 
the decisions of Scripture and some of the modern 
speculations in geology must be left directly to 
oppose each other, and that their hostility on this 
point cannot be softened by the advocates of ac- 
commodation. On this account no alarm need 
be felt by the believer, "for there is no counsel 
against the Lord;'''' and the progress of true 
philosophy will ever, in the result, add evidence 
to the truth of revelation. On the antiquity of the 
human race, geology has been compelled already 
to give its testimony to the accuracy of Moses, 
and the time is probably not far distant when 
a similar testimony will be educed from it as to 
the antiquity of the globe. 

In what it now opposes that authority, it may 
serve to rebuke the dogmatism with which it 
has disputed the Scriptures, to observe that, 
strictly speaking, the science itself is not yet 
half a century old, and is conversant, not with 
the surface of the earth only, but with its interior 
strata, which have been as yet but partially 
examined. It is therefore too early to theorize 
with so much confidence ; and the eager manner 
in which its hasty speculations have been taken 
up against the Mosaic account, can only remind 
thinking men of the equally eager manner in 
which the chronologies of China and Hindostan, 
and the supposed zodiacs of Egyptian temples, 
were once caught at, for the same reason, and 
we may justly fear from the same motives. It 
will, indeed, be time enough to enter into a 
formal defence of Moses, when geologists agree 
among themselves on leading principles. Cuvier 
gives rather an amusing account of the odd and 

2 This view is totally inconsistent with the favorite notion 
of certain modern geologists of a primitive chaotic ocean, 
containing, like that of the heathen poets, the elements of 
all things ; a notion which those who wish to reconcile the 
account of Genesis with tho modern geology have been 
willing to concede to them, on the ground that Moses has 
said that tho earth was l - without form and void." But they 
have not considered that it was "the earth," not a liquid 
mass, which is thus characterized : circum fused with water, 
it is true, but not minglod with it. The LXX render tho 
phrase Vfa'l 1!~ir% tohu vabohu, doparoc, nal aKateuTKev- 
aoroc, invisible and unfurnished, — invisible both because of 
the darkness, and the water which covered it. and unfur- 
nished because destitute as yet of vegetables and animals. 
"It is wonderful." says Rosenmuller, "how so many inter- 
preters could imagine Chat a chads was described in the 
words 111— 1 1!~Ii"l, tohu vaholnt. This notion unquestionably 
took its origin from the Actions of the Greek and Latin 
poets, which were transferred, by those interpreters, 1 1 
Moses." Those actions ground themselves, we may add, 
upon traditions received from bhe earliest times; but the 
additions of poetic fancy are not to be applied to interpret 
the Scriptures. 



144 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART I. 



contradictory speculations of liis scientific breth- 
ren: {Theory, by Jamieson, pages 41-47:) all of 
which he of course condemns, and fancies him- 
self, as they all fancied themselves before him, a 
successful theorist. The vehemence "with which 
the two great rival geological sects, the Neptunian 
and Plutonian, have disputed, to a degree almost 
unprecedented in the modern age of philosophy, 
adds but little authority to the decisions of either, 
inasmuch as the contest is grounded upon an 
assumed knowledge of facts, and therefore shows 
that the facts themselves are but indistinctly 
apprehended in their relations to each other, and 
that the collection of phenomena on both sides 
still need to be arranged and systematized, under 
the guidance of some calm, and modest, and 
master mind. 1 

In all these speculations it is observable, that 
it is assumed at once that philosophy and the 
Mosaic account are incompatible, and generally 
without any pains having been taken to under- 
stand that account itself. Yet as that account 
professes to be from one who was both the author 
and the witness of the phenomena in question, it 
might have been supposed that the aid of testi- 
mony would have been gladly brought to induction. 
An able work has been recently published on this 
subject by Mr. Granville Penn, who has at once 
reproved the bold philosophy which excludes the 
operation of God, and employs itself only among 
second causes ; and has unfolded the Mosaic 
account of two great revolutions of the earth, 
one of which took place when "the waters were 
gathered into one place," and the other at the 
deluge, "when the fountains of the great deep 
were broken up," 2 and has applied them to 
account for those phenomena which have been 
made to require a theory not to be reconciled 
with the sacred historian. 3 

1 Mons. L. A. Necker de Sausscre, (Voyage en Ecosse,) 
speaking of the disputes between the Wernerians and 
Huttonians, says, "The former availed themselves of the 
ascendency which a more minnte study of minerals afforded, 
to depreciate the observations of their adversaries. They 
denied the existence of facts which the latter had dis- 
covered, or they tried to sink their importance. Hence it 
happened that phenomena, important to the natural history 
of the earth, have never been made known and appreciated 
as they ought to have been, by geologists most capable of 
estimating their consequences." 

2 See note A at the end of the chapter. 

3 A scientific journal of great reputation, edited at the 
Eoyal Institution, has made an honorable disclaimer of 
those theories which contradict the Scriptures, and speaks 
in commendation of the work of Mr. Penn: "We are not 
inclined, even if we had time, to enter into the comparative 
merits of the fire and water fancies, miscalled theories ; but 
we have certain old-fashioned prejudices, which in these 
enlightened days of skepticism and infidelity, will no doubt 
be set down as mightily ridiculous, but which, nevertheless, 
induce us to pause before we acquiesce either in the one or 
the other. There is another mode of accounting for the 



Voltaire objected to the philosophy of the 
Mosaic account, that it has represented a solid 
firmament to have been formed, in which the 
stars are fixed as in a wall of adamant. This 
objection was made in ignorance of the import 
of the original word rendered firmamentum by 
the Vulgate, and which signifies an expanse, 
referring evidently to the atmosphere. The 
Septuagint seems to have rendered ^pn by 
arepiujua, which signifies a firm support, with 
reference to the ofiice of the atmosphere, to keep 
up, as effectually as by some solid support, the 
waters contained in the clouds. The account of 
Moses is philosophically true : the expanded or 
diffused atmosphere "divides the waters from 
the waters," the waters in the clouds from the 
waters of the earth and sea; and the objection 
only shows ignorance of the original language, 
or inattention to it. 

It is more difficult to explain that part of the 
Mosaic relation which represents light as created 
on the first day, and the sun not until the fourth : 
it would be wearisome to give the various solu- 
tions which have been offered. One of the most 
recent, that which supposes the creation of latent 
heat and light to be spoken of, cannot certainly 
be maintained ; for the light which on the first 
day obeyed the sublime fiat, was not latent, but 
in a state of excitement, and collected itself into 
a body sufficient to produce the distinction be- 
tween day and night, which, had it been either 
in a latent state, or everywhere diffused in an 
excited form, could not have been effected. The 
difficulty, however, so far from discrediting the 
Mosaic account, affords it a striking confirma- 
tion. Had it been compiled under popular 
notions, it never could have entered the mind of 
man, drawing all his philosophy from the optical 
appearances of nature only, that light, sufficient 
to form the distinction between day and night, 
should have been created independent of the 
sun; and the conclusion therefore is, that the 
account was received either from inspiration, or 
from a tradition pure from its original fountain, 
and which had flowed on to the time of Moses, 
unmixed with popular corruptions. 

"Sir "William Herschel," says Mr. Granville 

Penn, "has discovered that the body of the sun 

is an opaque substance; and that the splendid 

matter which dispenses to the world light and 

I heat, is a luminous atmosphere, (Phil. Trans, for 

! 1795, p. 46; and for 1801, p. 265,) attached to 

J 

present state of the earth's structure, on principles at least 
as rational, in a philosophical light, as either the Plutonian 
or Neptunian ; and inasmuch as it is more consistent with, 
and founded on, sacred history, incomparably s-iperior 
See Mr. Granville Penx's Comparative Estimate of the 
Mineral and Mosaical Geologies." 



CH. XX.] 

its surface, figuratively, though not physically, 
as flame is attached to the wick of a lamp or a 
torch. So that the creation of the sun, as a part 
of 'the host of heaven,' does not necessarily imply 
the creation of light ; and, conversely, the creation 
of light does not necessarily imply the creation 
of the bodg of the sun. In the first creation of 
l the heaven and the earth,'' therefore, not the 
planetary orbs only, but the solar orb itself, was 
created in darkness ; awaiting the light which, by 
one simple Divine operation, was to be communi- 
cated at once to all. When, then, the almighty 
Word, in commanding light, commanded the first 
illumination of the solar atmosphere, its new light 
was immediately caught, and reflected through- 
out space, by all the members of the planetary 
system. And well may we imagine that, in that 
first, sudden, and magnificent illumination of the 
universe, ' the morning stars sang together, and the 
sons of God shouted for jog.' " Job xxxviii. 7. 

But if the discovery of Herschel be real, the 
passage just quoted supposes the solar orb to 
have been invested with its luminous atmosphere 
on the first day, and the difficulty in question 
still remains untouched; though it admirably 
explains how "the heavens," that is, our solar 
system, should be created by one act, and yet 
that it should require a second fiat to invest 
them with light. Another way of meeting the 
difficulty is, that the lights which are said to 
have been made on the fourth day, were not on 
that day actually created, but determined to cer- 
tain uses. Thus Rosenmuller: "If any one who 
is conversant with the genius of the Hebrew, 
and free from any previous bias of his judgment, 
will read the words of this article in their natu- 
ral connection, he will immediately perceive that 
they import the direction or determination of the 
heavenly bodies to certain uses which they were to 
supply to the earth. The words matt fii are not 
to be separated from the rest, or to be rendered 
fiant luminaria, — let there be lights; that is, let 
lights be made; but rather, let lights be, that is, 
serve in the expanse of heaven — inserviant in expanso 
cozlorum — for distinguishing between day and night; 
and let them be, or serve, for signs, etc. For we 
are to observe that the verb ifil, to be, in con- 
struction with the prefix \ for, is generally 
employed to express the direction or determination 
of a thing to an end; and not the production of the 
thing: e. g. Num. x. 31, Zech. viii. 19, and in 
many other places." 

To this there is an obvious objection that it 
docs not assign any work, properly speaking, to 
the fourth day ; and how, when neither being was 
on that day given to them, nor any change 
effected in their qualities or relations, tho lights 
could be determined to certain uses except by 
10 



EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



145 



giving information of their uses to men, cannot 
be conceived ; and as yet man was not created. 
Mr. Penn indeed supposes that the heavenly 
bodies had been hid from the earth till the fourth 
day by vapors ; that then they were for the first 
time dispelled; and, as he eloquently says, "the 
amazing calendar of the heavens, ordained to serve 
for the notation of time in all human concerns, 
civil and religious, so long as time and man 
should continue, was therefore to be now first 
unfolded to the earth, with all the visible indices 
of time by which its measures were thereafter to 
be marked, distinguished, and computed; and 
the splendid cause, which had hitherto issued its 
effect of light through an interposed medium, was 
to dispense that light to the earth immediately, 
in the full manifestation of its effulgence." 

The notion that the earth was from the first to 
the fourth day enveloped with vapor, so that, as 
in a fog, the distinction of day and night was 
manifest, though the celestial orbs were not visi- 
ble, is however assumed, and does not appear 
quite philosophical ; and though the dispersion 
of these vapors from the atmosphere assigns a 
work to the fourth day, it scarcely appears to be 
of sufficient importance to accord with the lan- 
guage of the history. It would be better to 
suppose, with others, that on the fourth day the 
annual motion of the earth commenced, which 
till then merely turned upon its axis, and with it 
the annual motion of the moon and planets in 
their orbits, — that wonderfully rapid and yet 
regular flight of the heavenly bodies, which so 
awfully displays the power of the great Artificer 
in communicating, and constantly feeding, the 
mighty impulse, and which is so essential to the 
measurement of time, that without it the "lights'" 
could not be, or serve, "for signs and for seasons," 
and " for" solemn "days," religious festivals, and 
the commemoration of important events, and 
"for years." A sublime work is thus assigned 
to the fourth day, and the difficulty seems mainly 
to be removed ; but whether some violence is not 
done to the letter of the account, may still be 
doubted ; and the difficulty which proves, as we 
have seen, if admitted in its full force, more for 
the Mosaic relation than against it, had better be 
retained, than one iota of the strict grammatical 
and contextual meaning of Scripture be suffered 
to pass away. 

Several objections have been made at different 
times to the Mosaic account of the deluge. The 
fact, however, is not only preserved in the tradi- 
tions of all nations, as wo have already seen, 
but, after all the philosophical arguments which 
were formerly urged against it, philosophy has 
at length acknowledged that the present surfaco 
of the earth must have been submerged uuder 



146 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART 



water. "Not only," says Eirwan, "in every! 
region of Europe, but also of both, the old and 
new continents, immense quantities of marine 
shells, either dispersed or collected, have been 
discovered." This and several other facts seem 
to prove that at least a great part of the present 
earth was, before the last general convulsion to 
which it has been subjected, the bed of an ocean 
which, at that time, was withdrawn from it. 
Other facts seem also to prove with sufficient 
evidence, that this was not a gradual retirement 
of the waters which once covered the parts now 
inhabited by men; but a violent one, such as may 
be supposed from the brief but emphatic relation 
of Moses. The violent action of water has left 
its traces in various undisputed phenomena. 
" Stratified mountains of various heights exist in 
different parts of Europe, and of both continents, 
in and between whose strata various substances 
of marine, and some vegetables of terrestrial 
origin, repose either in their natural state, or 
petrified." — Kirwan's Geological Essays. "To 
overspread the plains of the Arctic circle with 
the shells of Indian seas, and with the bodies of 
elephants and rhinoceri, surrounded by masses 
of submarine vegetation ; to accumulate on a 
single spot, as at La Bolca, in promiscuous con- 
fusion, the marine productions of the four 
quarters of the globe ; what conceivable instru- 
ment would be efficacious but the rush of mighty 
waters?" — Gisborne's Testimony of Natural 
Theology, etc. These facts, about which there 
is no dispute, and which are acknowledged by 
the advocates of each of the prevailing geological 
theories, give a sufficient attestation to the deluge 
of Noah, in which "the fountains of the great deep 
were broken up," and from which precisely such 
phenomena might be expected to follow. To this 
may be added, though less decisive in proof, yet 
certainly strong as presumptive evidence, that 
the very aspect of the earth's surface exhibits 
interesting marks both of the violent action and 
the rapid subsidence of waters ; as well as affords 
a most interesting instance of the Divine good- 
ness in converting what was ruin itself, into 
utility and beauty. The great framework of the 
varied surface of the habitable earth was pro- 
bably laid by a more powerful agency than that 
of water: either when, on the third day, the 
waters under the heavens were gathered into one 
place, and the crust of the primitive earth was 
broken down to receive them, so that "the dry j 
land might appear;" or by those mighty convul- 
sions which appear to have accompanied the 
general deluge; but the rounding, so to speak, 
of what was rugged, where the substance was 
yielding, and the graceful undulations of hill and 
dale which so frequently present themselves, 



were probably effected by the retiring waters. 
The flood has passed away, but the soils which it 
deposited remain; and the valleys through which 
its last streams were drawn off to the ocean, with 
many an eddy and sinuous course, still exist, 
exhibiting visible proofs of its agency, and im- 
pressed with forms so adapted to the benefit of 
man, and often so gratifying to the finest taste, 
that when the flood "turned," it may be said to 
have "left a blessing behind it." 

Thus the objections once made to the fact of a 
general deluge, have been greatly weakened by 
the progress of philosophical knowledge ; and 
may indeed be regarded as nearly given up, like 
the former notion of the high antiquity of the 
race of men, founded on the Chinese and Egypt- 
ian chronologies and pretended histories. Philo- 
sophy has even at last found out that there is 
sufficient water in the ocean, if called forth, to 
overflow the highest mountains to the height 
given by Moses — a conclusion which it once 
stoutly denied. Keill formerly computed that 
twenty-eight oceans would be necessary for that 
purpose, but we are now informed "that a fur- 
ther progress in mathematical and physical 
knowledge has shown the different seas and 
oceans to contain at least forty-eight times more 
water than they were then supposed to do ; and 
that the mere raising of the temperature of the 
whole body of the ocean to a degree no greater 
than marine animals live in, in the shallow seas 
between the tropics, would so expand it as more 
than to produce the height above the mountains 
stated in the Mosaic account." As to the deluge 
of Noah, therefore, infidelity has almost entirely 
lost the aid of philosophy in framing objections 
to the Scriptures. 

The dimensions of the ark, and the preserva- 
tion of the animals contained in it, are however 
still the subject of occasional ridicule, though 
with little foundation. Dr. Hales proves the ark 
to have been of the burthen of 42,413 tons, and 
asks, "Can we doubt of its being sufficient to 
contain eight persons, and about two hundred or 
two hundred and fifty pair of four-footed ani- 
mals, (a number to which, according to M. 
Buffon, all the various distinct species may be 
reduced,) together with all the subsistence neces- 
sary for a twelvemonth, with the fowls of the air, 
and such reptiles and insects as cannot live under 
water? All these various animals were con- 
trolled by the power of God, whose special 
agency is supposed in the whole transaction, and 
'the lion was made to lie down with the kid.' " 

Whether Noah was commanded to bring with 
him into the ark a pair of all living creatures, 
zoologically and numerically considered, has been 
doubted ; and as during the long period between 



CH. XX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 



147 



the creation and the flood, animals must have 
spread themselves over a great part of the ante- 
diluvian earth, and certain animals would, as 
now, probably become indigenous to certain 
climates, the pairs saved must in such cases 
have travelled from immense distances. Of 
such marches no intimation is given in the 
history; and this seems to render it probable 
that the animals which Noah was " to bring with 
him" into the ark, were the animals, clean and 
unclean, of the country in which he dwelt, and 
which, from the evident capacity of the ark, 
must have been in great variety and number. 
The terms used, it is true, are universal ; and it 
is satisfactory to know that if the largest sense 
of them be taken, there was ample accommoda- 
tion in the ark. Nevertheless, universal terms 
in Scripture are not always to be taken mathe- 
matically ; and in the vision of Peter, the phrase 
rrdvra to, rerpaTroda rijc yrjg — "all the four-footed 
beasts of the earth," must be understood of "varii 
generis quadrupedes," as Schleusner paraphrases 
it. In this case we may easily account for the 
exuviae of animals whose species no longer exist, 
and which have been discovered in various 
places. The number of such extinct species has 
probably been greatly overrated by Cuvier ; but 
of the fact, to a considerable extent, there can 
be no doubt. It is also to be remarked, that we 
are not obliged to go to the limited interpretation 
of the command to Noah respecting the animals 
to be preserved in the ark, in order to account 
for this fact; for, without adopting the totally 
unscriptural theory of a former world, or of more 
general revolutions of the earth than the Scrip- 
tures state, (partial ones affecting large districts 
may have taken place,) we know of no principle 
in the word of God which should lead us to con- 
clude that all the animals which God at first 
created should be preserved to the end of time. 
In many countries whole species of wild animals 
have perished by the progress of cultivation, a 
process which must ultimately produce the utter 
extinction of the same species everywhere. The 
offices which many other creatures were designed 
to fulfil in the economy of nature, may have 
terminated with the new circumstances in which 
the parts they have chiefly inhabited are placed. 
So it might be before the flood, and in many places 
since. Thus, then, the cxuvioi of extinct species 
may bo expected to present themselves. But in 
addition to this, if we suppose that during the 
antediluvian period animals of various kinds had 
located themselves in different portions of the 
ocean, and in different climates of tho primitive 
Garth ; and that, of the terrestrial animals become 
indigenous to parts of the earth distant from 
Noah and the inhabited world, some species were 



not received into the ark, their remains will also 
be occasionally discovered, and present the proof 
of modes of animated existence not now to be 
paralleled. Among fossil remains it has been 
made a matter of surprise that no human 
skeletons, or but few, and those in recent forma- 
tions, have been found. The reason, however, is 
not difficult to furnish. If we admit that the 
present continents were the bottom of the ante- 
diluvian ocean, and that the ocean has changed 
its place, then the former habitations of men are 
submerged, and their remains are beyond human 
reach. If any part of the antediluvian earth 
still remains, it is probably that region to which 
Noah and his family were restored from the ark ; 
and in those countries geology has not commenced 
its interior researches, and such fossil remains 
may there exist. There is this difference between 
the human race and the inferior animals : that 
while the latter for near two thousand years 
were roaming over the wide earth, the former 
confined themselves to one region ; for those 
extravagant calculations as to the population of 
the earth at the time of the flood, which some 
have made, cannot be maintained on the author- 
ity of Scripture, on which they professedly rest, 
since it is certain that they represent Noah as a 
preacher of righteousness to the whole existing 
"world" of men during the time the ark was 
preparing, one hundred and twenty years. The 
human race must, therefore, have lived, however 
populous, in the same region, and been either in 
personal communication with him, or within 
reach of the distinct report of his doctrines, and 
of that great and public act of his faith, the 
preparing of the ark, " by the which he condemned 
the world, and became heir of the righteousness 
which is by faith." Even Cuvier gives it as a 
reason why human skeletons are not found in a 
fossil state, "that the place which men then 
inhabited may have sunk into the abyss, and 
that the bones of that destroyed race may yet 
remain buried under the bottom of some actual 



Such are the leading evidences of the truth 
of the Holy Scriptures, and of the religious 
system which they unfold, from the first promise 
made to the first fallen man, to its perfected 
exhibition in the New Testament. The Christian 
will review these solid and immovablo founda- 
tions of his faith with unutterable joy. They 
leave none of his moral interests unprovided for 
in time : they set beforo him a certain and a felici- 
tous immortality. The skeptic and the infidel 
may bo entreated by every compassionate feeling 
to a more serious consideration of the evidences 



148 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART I. 



of this Divine system, and the difficulties and 
hopelessness of their own ; and they ought to be 
reminded, in the words of a modern writer, "If 
Christianity be true, it is tremendously true 
Let them turn to an insulted, but yet a merciful 
Saviour, who even now prays for his blasphemers, 
in the words he once addressed to Heaven in 
behalf of his murderers, " Father, forgive them ; 

FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO ! " 



Note A. 



From the work referred to in the text, the following ex- 
tracts will be read with interest. 

Mr Perm first controverts the notion of those geologists 
who think that the earth was originally a flnid mass; and 
i as they plead the authority of Sir I. Newton, who is said 
to have concluded from its figure (an obtuse spherof .that 
it was originally a yielding mass, Mr. Penn shows that tina 
was only P ut hypothetical!)' by him ; and that he has laid 
it down expressly as his belief, not that there was first a 
chaotic ocean, and then a gradual process of first forma- 
tions, but that "God at the beginning formed all material 
things of such figures and properties as most conduced to 
the end for which he formed them ;" and that he judged it 
to be unphilosophical to ascribe them to any mediate or 
secondary cause, such as laws of nature operating m 
chaos Mr. Penn then proceeds to show, that though what 
geologists call first formations may have the appearance of 
Lvhfg been produced by z process, say of crystallization, or 
any other, that is no proof that they were -formed by 
the immediate act of God, as we are taught ^Scrip- 
tures: and he confirms this by examples from the ^ 
formations in the animal and vegetable kingdoms and con- 
tends that the first formations of the mineral kin gdom 
must come under the same rule. «If a bone of the ^ 
created man now remained, and were mingled with other 
tones pertaining to a generated race; and if it were to be 
submitted to the inspection and examination of an anato- 
mist, what opinion and judgment would its sensible pheno- 
mena suggest respecting the mode of its first formation, and 
Xt would be his conclusion? If he were ^apprised of 
Us true origin, his mind would see nothing m its sensible 

geology 'sees nothing in the detail, of the forma ion of 
minerals but -precipitations, crystallizations, and dissoluhons. 
™D ™ubuisson,i. pp. 326-7.) He would, therefore, naturally 
pronounce of this bone, as of all other bones, that it 
^fibres ivere originally soft; until, in the shelter of the 
maternal womb, it acquired « the hardness of a ca rtilage, and 
then of boner that this effect < was not produced at once, or 
n a very short time; but < by degrees f that, after birth, it 
increased in hardness < by the continual addition of ossifying 
matter, until it ceased to grow at all.' 

"Physically true as this reasoning would appear, it would, 

nevertheless, be morally and really false. Why would it be 

false ? Because it concluded, from mere sensible phenomena, 

to the certainty of a fact which could not be established by 

the evidence of sensible phenomena alone; namely, the 

mode of the first formation of the substance of created bone 

"Let us proceed from animal to vegetable matter; and let 

us consider the first created tree, under which the created 

n^nfirst reposfd,and from which he gathered his first 

Lit. That tree must have had a stem, or trunk , through 

h the juices were conveyed from the root to he fruit 

Tnd by which it was able to sustain the branches upon 

which the fruit grew. 

« If a portion of this created tree now remained, and if a 



section of its wood were to be mingled with other sections 
of propagated trees, and submitted to the inspection and 
examination of a naturalist, what opinion and judgment 
would its sensible phenomena suggest to him respecting the 
mode of its first formation, and what would be his conclu- 
sion? If he were unapprised of its true origin, his mind 
would see nothing in its sensible phenomena but the laws of 
lignification: just as the mineral geologist ' sees nothing in 
the details of the formations of primitive rock but precipi- 
tations, crystallizations, and dissolutions: He would, there- 
fore, naturally pronounce of it, as of all the other sections of 
wood, that its * fibres,' when they first issued from the seed, 
'were soft and herbaceous:' that they 'did not suddenly pass 
to the hardness of perfect wood,' but 'after many years:' 
that the hardness of their folds, 'which indicate the growth 
of each year,' was, therefore, effected only 'by degrees;' and 
that, 'since nature does nothing but by a progressive 
course, it is not surprising that its substance acquired its 
hardness only by little and little.' 

"Physically true as the naturalist would here appear to 
reason, vet his reasoning, like that of the anatomist, would 
be morally and really false. And why would it be false? 
For the same reason: because he concluded, from mere 
sensible phenomena, to the certainty of a fact which could 
not be established by the evidence of sensible phenomena 
alone; namely, the mode of the first formation of the sub- 
stance of created wood. , 

« There now only remains to be considered the third, or 
mineral kingdom of this terrestrial system ; and it appears 
probable to reason and philosophy, by prima facie evidence, 
that the principle determining the mode of first formations 
in two parts of this threefold division of matter must have 
equal authority in this third part. And, indeed, after the 
closest, investigation of the subject, we can discover no 
o-round whatever for supposing that this third part is 
exempted from the authority of that common principle; or 
that physics are a whit more competent to dogmatize con- 
cerning the mode of first formations, from the evidence of 
phenomena alone, in the mineral kingdom, than they have 
been found to be in the animal, or vegetable; or to affirm, 
from the indications of the former, that the mode of its 
first formations was more gradual and tardy than those of 
the other two. 

« Let us try this point, by proceeding with our compari- 
son: and let us consider the first created roe*, as we have 
considered the first created bone and wood; and let us ask, 
What is rock, in its nature and composition ? 

« To this question mineralogy replies : ' By the word rock 

we mean every mineral mass of such bulk as to be regarded 

an essential part of the structure of the globe. (D'Aubuisson, 

. 272) We understand by the void mineral a natural 

body, inorganic, solid, homogeneous, that ^composed of 

integrant molecules of the same substance. (V> Aubuisson, 

i t> ZT1.) We may, perhaps, pronounce that a mass is 

e^enUal, when its displacement would ««*»*£*£ 

fall of other masses which are placed upon it. (D Aubuis- 

inn i n 272 ) Such are those lofty and ancient mountains, 

Z'firsl and most solid bones, as it were, of this glohe-ta 

praniers, lesplus solides o»*-which have rented the 

- name of primitive, because, scorning all support and all 

' foreign mixture, they repose always upon bases similar to 

' themselves, and comprise within their substance no matter 

j but ot the same nature. (Saussure, Voyages des Alps, I*£ 

Prfl vv 6 7 ) These are the primordial mountains, whu.n 

' traverse our continents in various directions rising above 

Z clouds, separating the basins of rivers one from another 

I serving, by means of their eternal snows, as resenous for 

feS the springs, and forming, in some measure, the 

I S or, as it were, the rough framework of the earth 

I tcutier sec 7, p. 39.) These primitive masses are stamped 

SHE. ctaractor of a formation altogether crystalhne as 

| if they were really the product of a tranquil precipitation. 

— D'Aubuisson, ii. p. 5. 



CH. XX.] 



EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



149 



"Had the mineral geology contented itself with this 
simple mineralogical statement, we should have thus 
argued concerning the crystalline phenomena of the first 
mineral formations — conformably to the principles which 
v/e have recognized. As the bone of the first man, and 
the wood of the first tree, whose solidity was essential for 
1 giving shape, firmness, and support' to their respective 
6ystems, were not, and could not have been, formed by 
the gradual processes of ossification and lignification, of 
which they nevertheless must have exhibited the sensible 
phenomena, or apparent indications ; so, reason directs us 
to conclude that primitive rock, whose solidity was equally 
essential for giving shape, firmness, and support to the 
mineral system of this globe, was not, and could not have 
been, formed by the gradual process of precipitation and 
crystallization, notwithstanding any sensible phenomena, 
apparently indicative of those processes, v» hich it may ex- 
hibit ; but that in the mineral kingdom, as in the animal 
and vegetable kingdoms, the creating Agent anticipated in 
his formations, by an immediate act, effects, whose sensible 
phenomena could not determine the mode of their for- 
mation ; because the real mode was in direct contradiction 
to the apparent indications of the phenomena. 

"But the mineral geology has not contented itself with 
that simple mineralogical statement ; nor drawn the con- 
clusion which we have drawn, in conformity with the prin- 
ciples, and in observance of the rules, of Newton's philoso- 
phy. It affirms, ' that the characters by which geology is 
written in the book of nature, in which it is to be studied, 
are minerals ;' (D'Aubuisson, Disc. Prel., p. 29 ;) and it ' sees 
nothing 1 in that book of nature but ' precipitations, crystal- 
lizations, and dissolutions? and therefore, because it sees 
nothing else, it concludes without hesitation from crystalline 
phenomena to actual crystallization. Thus, by attempting 
the impossibility of deducing a universal principle, namely, 
the mode of first formations, from the analysis of a single 
individual, namely, mineral matter, separate from coordi- 
nate animal and vegetable matter ; and concluding, from that 
defective analysis, to the general law of first formations, 
it set out with inadequate light, and it is no wonder that 
it ended in absolute darkness; for such is its elemental 
chaos, and its cliemical precipitation of this globe : a doctrine 
so nearly resembling the exploded atomic philosophy of the 
Epicurean school, that it requires a very close and laborious 
inspection to discover a single feature by which they may 
be distinguished from each other." 

This argument is largely supported and illustrated in 
the work ; and thus, by referring first formations of every 
kind to an immediate act of God, those immense periods 
of time which geology demands for its chemical processes 
are rendered unnecessary. From first formations, Mr. Penn 
proceeds to oppose the notion that the earth has under- 
gone many general revolutions, and thinks that all geolo- 
gical phenomena may be better explained by the Mosaic 
record, which confines those general revolutions to two. 
Mr. Penn's course of observation will be seen by the 
following recapitulation of the second and third parts of 
his work : — 

" That this globe, so constructed at its origin, has under- 
gone two, and only two, general changes or revolutions of 



its substance ; each of which was caused by the immediate 
will, intelligence, and power of God, exercised upon the 
work which he had formed, and directing the laws or 
agencies which he had ordained within it. 

" That, by the first change or revolution, [that of gather- 
ing the waters into one place, and making the dry land 
appear,] one portion or division of the surface of the globe 
was suddenly and violently fractured and depressed, in 
order to form, in the first instance, a receptacle or bed for 
the waters universally diffused over that surface, and to 
expose the other portion, that it might become a dwelling 
for animal life ; but yet with an ulterior design, that the 
receptacle of the waters should eventually become the 
chief theatre of animal existence, by the portion first ex- 
posed experiencing a similar fracture and depression, and 
thus becoming, in its turn, the receptacle of the same 
waters ; which should then be transfused into it, leaving 
their former receptacle void and dry. 

"That this first revolution took place before the ex- 
istence, that is, before the creation of any organized 
beings. 

" That the sea, collected into this va*t fractured cavity 
of the globe's surface, continued to occupy it during 1656 
years ; [from the creation to the deluge ;] during which long 
period of time, its waters acted in various modes, chemical 
and mechanical, upon the several soils and fragments 
which formed its bed; and marine organic matter, animal 
and vegetable, was generated and accumulated in vast 
abundance. 

"That, after the expiration of those 1656 years, it 
pleased God, in a second revolution, to execute his ulterior 
design, by repeating the amazing operation by which he 
had exposed the first earth ; ,and, by the disruption and de- 
pression of that first earth below the level of the bed of the 
first sea, to produce a new bed, into which the waters de- 
scended from their former bed, leaving it to become the 
theatre of the future generations of mankind. 

" That THIS PRESENT EARTH was THAT FORMER BED. 

" That it must, therefore, necessarily exhibit manifest 
and universal evidences of the vicissitudes which it ha3 
undergone : namely, of the vast apparent ruin occasioned 
by its first violent disruption and depression ; of the pre- 
sence and operation of the marine fluid during the long 
interval which succeeded ; and of the action and effects of 
that fluid in its ultimate retreat. 

"Within the limits of this general scheme, all specula- 
tions must be confined which would aspire to the quality 
of sound geology ; yet vast and sublime is the field which 
it lays open, to exercise the intelligence and experience of 
sober and philosophical mineralogy and chemistry. Upon 
this legitimate ground, those many valuable writers, who 
have unwarily lent their science to uphold and propagate 
the vicious doctrine of a chaotic geogony, may geologize 
with full security ; and may there concur to promote that 
true advancement of natural philosophy, which Newton 
holds to be inseparable from a proportionate advancement 
of the moral. They must thus at length succeed in per- 
fecting a true philosophical geology ; which never can exist, 
unless the principle of Newton form the foundation. ;md 
the relation of Moses the worldng plan." 



150 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



PART SECOND. 

DOCTRINES OE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE EXISTENCE OE GOD. 



The Divine authority of those writings which 
are received by Christians as a revelation of in- 
fallible truth, having been established, our next 
step is seriously, and with simplicity of mind, 
to examine their contents, and to collect from 
them that ample information on religious and 
moral subjects which they profess to contain, 
and in which it had become necessary that the 
world should be supernaturally instructed. 
Agreeably to a principle which has already been 
laid down, I shall endeavor, as in the case of 
any other record, to exhibit their meaning by 
the application of those plain rules of interpre- 
tation which have been established for such pur- 
poses by the common agreement of the sober 
part of mankind. All the assistance within 
reach from critics, commentators, and divines, 
shall however be resorted to; for, though the 
water can only be drawn pure from the sacred 
fountain itself, we yet owe it to many of these 
guides, that they have successfuUy directed us 
to the openings through which it breaks, and led 
the way into the depth of the stream. 

The doctrine which the first sentence in this 
Divine revelation unfolds is, that there is a God, 
the Creator of heaven and earth; and as this 
is fundamental to the whole scheme of duty, 
promise, and hope, which the bocks of Scripture 
successively unfold and explain, it demands our 
earliest consideration. 

In three distinct ways do the sacred writers 
furnish us with information on this great and 
essential subject, the existence and the character 
of God : from the names by which he is desig- 
nated; from the actions ascribed to him; and 
from the attributes with which he is invested in 
their invocations and praises, and in those 
lofty descriptions of his nature which, under the 
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have re- 
corded for the instruction of the world. These 



attributes will be afterward particularly con- 
sidered ; but the impression of the general view 
of the Divine character, as thus revealed, is too 
important to be omitted. 

The names of God, as recorded in Scripture, 
convey at once ideas of overwhelming greatness 
and glory, mingled with that awful mysterious- 
ness with which, to all finite minds, and espe- 
cially to the minds of mortals, the Divine essence 
and mode of existence must ever be invested. 
Though One, he is cY^X, Elohim, Gods, 
persons adorable. He is mm, Jehovah, self- 
existing; $X, El, strong, powerful; mnx, Ehieh, 
I am, I will be, self-existence, independency, all- 
sufficiency, immutability, eternity; ^E, Shaddai, 
almighty, all-sufficient; -px, Adon, Supporter, 
Lord, Judge. These are among the adorable 
appellatives of God which are scattered through- 
out the revelation which he has been pleased to 
make of himself; but on one occasion he was 
pleased more particularly to declare "his name" 
that is, such of the qualities and attributes of 
the Divine nature as mortals are the most in- 
terested in knowing; and to unfold, not only 
his natural, but those also of his moral attributes 
by which his conduct toward his creatures is 
regulated. "And the Lord passed by and pro- 
claimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in good- 
ness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, for- 
giving iniquity, transgression and sin, and that mil 
by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity 
of the fathers upon the children, and upon the 
children's children, unto the third and fourth 
generation:' Exod. xxxiv. This is the most 
ample and particular description of the char- 
acter of God, as given by himself in the sacred 
records; and the import of the several title* 
by which he has thus in his infinite condescen- 
sion manifested himself has been thus exhibited. 
He is not only Jehovah, self -existent, and El. 
the strong or mighty God, but " Dim, Rochum, 
the merciful being, who is full of tenderness 
and compassion, -pan, Chanhn, the gracious one, 



OH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



151 



he whose nature is goodness itself — the loving 
God. Es^DiX "pX, Erec Apayim, long-suffering, 
the Being who, because of his tenderness, is 
not easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind. 
£H, Rab, the great or mighty one. ion, Chesed, 
the bountiful Being : he who is exuberant in his 
beneficence. WON, Emeth, the Truth, or true j 
One : he alone who can neither deceive nor be j 
deceived, ion 1S3, Notser Chesed, the pre- \ 
server of bountifulness : he whose beneficence 
never ends, keeping mercy for thousands of 
generations, showing compassion and mercy 
while the world endures, naoni 3>tt)E>1 "p? KM, 
Nose avon vapesha vechataah, he who bears away 
iniquity, transgression, and sin; properly the 
Redeemer, the Pardoner, the Forgiver, the 
Being whose prerogative it is to forgive sin, and 
save the soul, npai j£ ftpl, Nakeh lo yinnakeh, 
the righteous Judge, who distributes justice with 
an impartial hand. And "p? 1p5, Paked avon, 
etc., he who visits iniquity, he who punishes trans- 
gressors, and from whose justice no sinner can 
escape: the God of retributive and vindictive 
justice." — Dr. A. Clarke, in loc. 

The second means by which the Scriptures 
convey to us the knowledge of God, is by the 
actions which they ascribe to him. They con- 
tain indeed the important record of his deal- 
ings with men in every age which is compre- 
hended within the limit of the sacred history ; 
and, by prophetic declaration, they also exhibit 
the principles on which he will govern the world, 
to the end of time : so that the whole course of 
the Divine administration may be considered 
as exhibiting a singularly illustrative comment 
upon those attributes of his nature, which, in 
their abstract form, are contained in such decla- 
rations as those which have been just quoted. 
The first act ascribed to God is that of creating 
the heavens and the earth out of nothing ; and 
by his fiat alone arranging their parts, and 
peopling them with living creatures. By this 
were manifested — his eternity and self-existence, 
as he who creates must be before all creatures, 
and he who gives being to others can himself de- 
rive it from none : his almighty power, shown 
both in the act of creation, and in the number 
and vastness of the objects so produced: his 
toisdom, in their arrangement, and in their 
fitness to their respective ends; and his good- 
ness, as the whole tended to the happiness of 
sentient beings. The foundations of his natural 
and moral government are also made manifest 
by his creative acts. In what he mado out of 
nothing he had an absolute right and preroga- 
tive of ordering and disposal; so that to alter 
or destroy his own work, and to prcscribo the 
laws by which the intelligent and rational part 



of his creatures should be governed, are rights 
which none can question. Thus on the one 
hand his character of Lord or Governor is esta- 
blished, and on the other our duty of lowly 
homage and absolute obedience. 

Agreeably to this, as soon as man was created, 
he was placed under a rule of conduct. Obedi- 
ence was to be followed with the continuance of 
the Divine favor: transgression, with death. 
The event called forth new manifestations of the 
character of God. His tender mercy, in the 
compassion shown to the fallen pair ; his justice, 
in forgiving them only in the view of a satisfac- 
tion to be hereafter offered to his justice by an 
innocent representative of the sinning race : his 
love to that race, in giving his own Son to be- 
come this Redeemer, and in the fulness of time to 
die for the sins of the whole world; and his 
holiness, in connecting with this provision for 
the pardon of man the means of restoring him 
to a sinless state, and to the obliterated image 
of God in which he had been created. Exempli- 
fications of the Divine mercy are traced from 
age to age, in his establishing his own worship 
among men, and remitting the punishment of 
individual and national offences in answer to 
prayer offered from penitent hearts, and in de- 
pendence upon the typified or actually offered 
universal sacrifice : — of his condescension, in 
stooping to the cases of individuals : in his dis- 
pensations both of providence and grace, by 
showing respect to the poor and humble ; and, 
principally, by the incarnation of God in the form 
of a servant, admitting men into familiar and 
friendly intercourse with himself, and then 
entering into heaven to be their patron and advo- 
cate, until they should be received unto the same 
glory, "and so be for ever with the Lord:" — of 
his strictly righteous government, in the de- 
struction of the old world, the cities of the plain, 
the nations of Canaan, and all ancient states, 
upon their "filling up the measure of their 
iniquities;" and, to show that "he will by no 
means clear the guilty," in the numerous and 
severe punishments inflicted even upon the chosen 
seed of Abraham, because of their transgressions : 
— of his long-suffering, in frequent warnings, 
delays, and corrective judgments, inflicted upon 
individuals and nations, before sentenco of utter 
excision and destruction : — of faithfulness and 
truth, in the fulfilment of promises, often many 
ages after they were given, as in the promises 
to Abraham respecting the possession of the land 
of Canaan by his seed; and in all the "promises 
made to the fathers" respeoting the advent, vica- 
rious death, and illustrious offioeS o{' the Chris/, 
the Saviour of the world : — of his IMMUTABILITY, 
in tho constant and unchanging laws and prinei- 



152 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE! 



[PART II. 



pies of his government, which remain to this day 
precisely the same, in every thing universal, as 
when first promulgated, and have been the rule 
of his conduct in all places as well as through all 
time: — of his prescience of future events, 
manifested by the predictions of Scripture ; and 
of the depth and stability of his counsel, as 
illustrated in that plan and purpose of bringing 
back a revolted world to obedience and felicity, 
which we find steadily kept in view in the scrip- 
tural history of the acts of God in former ages ; 
which is still the end toward which all his dis- 
pensations bend, however wide and mysterious 
their sweep ; and which they will finally accom- 
plish, as we learn from the prophetic history of 
the future, contained in the Old and New Testa- 
ments. 

Thus the course of Divine operation in the 
world has from age to age been a manifestation 
of the Divine character, continually receiving new 
and stronger illustrations to the completion of 
the Christian revelation by the ministry of Christ 
and his inspired followers, and still placing itself 
in brighter light and more impressive aspects as 
the scheme of human redemption runs on to its 
consummation. From all the acts of God as re- 
corded in the Scriptures, we are taught that he 
alone is God : that he is present everywhere to 
sustain and govern all things : that his wisdom 
is infinite, his counsel settled, and his power irre- 
sistible : that he is holy, just, and good : the 
Lord and the Judge, but the Father and the 
Friend of man. 

More at large do we learn what God is, from 
the declarations of the inspired writings. 

As to his substance, that "God is a Spirit" 
As to his duration, that "from everlasting to ever- 
lasting he is God:" "the King, eternal, immortal, 
invisible." That, after all the manifestations he 
has made of himself, he is, from the infinite per- 
fection and glory of his nature, incomprehensi- 
ble: "Lo, these are parts of his ways; but how 
little a portion is heard of him!" "Touching the 
Almighty, we cannot find him out." That he is 
unchangeable, "the Father of Lights, with whom 
is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." 
That "he is the fountain of Life," and the only 
independent Being in the universe, "who only 
hath immortality." That every other being, how- 
ever exalted, has its existence from him : "for by 
him were all things created, that are in heaven 
and that are in earth, visible and invisible." 
That the existence of every thing is upheld 
by him, no creature being for a moment inde- 
pendent of his support: "by him all things con- 
sist," "upholding all things by the word of his 
power." That he is omnipresent: "Do not I 
fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord?" That he 



' is omniscient: "All things are naked and opened 
unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." 
That he is the absolute Lord and owner of all 
\ things : " The heaven and the heaven of heavens 
I is the Lord's thy God." " The earth is the 
I Lord's, and the fulness thereof: the world, and they 
\ that dwell therein." "He doeth according to his will 
in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants 
of the earth." That his providence extends to 
the minutest objects : "The hairs of your head are 
all numbered" "Are not two sparrows sold for a 
farthing ? and one of them shall not fall on the 
ground without your Father." That he is a being 
of unspotted purity and perfect rectitude : 
"Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts!" "A 
God of truth, and without iniquity" "Of purer 
eyes than to behold evil." That he is just in the 
administration of his government: "Shall not the 
Judge of all the earth do right?" "Clouds and 
darkness are round about him: righteousness and 
judgment are the habitation of his throne." That his 
wisdom is unsearchable : "0 the depth of the riches 
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how 
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
finding out !" And, finally, that he is good and 
merciful : "He is good, for his mercy endureth for 
ever." "His tender mercies are over all his works." 
"God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love 
wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in 
si?is, hath quickened us together with Christ." 
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto 
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." 
"God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in 
his Son." 

Under these deeply awful but consolatory 
views do the Scriptures present to us the supreme 
Object of our worship and trust, dwelling upon 
each of the above particulars with inimitable 
sublimity and beauty of language, and with an 
inexhaustible variety of illustration : nor can we 
compare these views of the Divine nature with 
the conceptions of the most enlightened of 
pagans, without feeling how much reason we 
have for everlasting gratitude, that a revelation 
so explicit, and so comprehensive, should have been 
made to us on a subject which only a revelation 
from God himself could have made known. It 
is thus that Christian philosophers, even when 
they do not use the language of the Scriptures, 
are able to speak on this great and mysterious 
doctrine in language so clear, and with concep- 
tions so noble: in a manner too so equable, so 
different to the sages of antiquity, who, if at any 
time they approach the truth, when speaking of 
the Divine nature, never fail to mingle with it 
some essentially erroneous or grovelling concep- 
tion. "By the word God," says Dr. Barrow, 
"we mean a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, 



CH. I.] 

and power, the creator and the governor of all 
things, to whom the great attributes of eternity 
and independency, omniscience and immensity, 
perfect holiness and purity, perfect justice and 
veracity, complete happiness, glorious majesty, 
and supreme right of dominion, belong ; and to 
whom the highest veneration, and most profound 
submission and obedience, are due." [Barrow 
on the Creed.) "Our notion of Deity," says 
Bishop Pearson, "doth expressly signify a Being 
or Nature of infinite perfection ; and the infinite 
perfection of a Being or Nature consists in this, 
that it be absolutely and essentially necessary : 
an actual Being of itself ; and potential or causa- 
tive of all beings beside itself, independent from 
any other, upon which all things else depend, 
and by which all things else are governed." 
[Pearson on the Creed.) "God is a Being, and 
not any kind of being ; but a substance, which is 
the foundation of other beings. And not only a 
substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are 
perfect in their kind, yet limited and finite. 
But God is absolutely, fully, and every way in- 
finitely perfect; and therefore above spirits, 
above angels, who are perfect comparatively. 
God's infinite perfection includes all the attributes, 
even the most excellent. It excludes all depend- 
ency, borrowed existence, composition, corrup- 
tion, mortality, contingency, ignorance, unright- 
eousness, weakness, misery, and all imperfections 
whatever. It includes necessity of being, inde- 
pendency, perfect unity, simplicity, immensity, 
eternity, immortality: the most perfect life, 
knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss, 
and all these in the highest degree. We cannot 
pierce into the secrets of this eternal Being. 
Our reason comprehends but little of him, and 
when it can proceed no farther, faith comes in, 
and we believe far more than we can understand ; 
and this our belief is not contrary to reason ; but 
reason itself dictates unto us that we must believe 
far more of God than it can inform us of." 
[Lawsorfs Theo-Politica.) To these we may add 
an admirable passage from Sir Isaac Newton: 
"The word God frequently signifies Lord; but 
every lord is not God : it is the dominion of a 
spiritual Being or Lord that constitutes God: 
true dominion, true God : supreme, the supreme : 
feigned, the false God. From such true dominion 
it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, 
and powerful ; and from his other perfections 
that he is supreme, or supremely perfect : ho is 
eternal and infinite : omnipotent and omniscient : 
that is, ho endures from eternity to eternity, and 
is present from infinity to infinity. He governs 
all things that exist, and knows all things that 
are to be known : he is not eternity or infinity, 
but eternal and infinite : lie is not duration or 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



153 



space, but he endures and is present : he endures 
always, and is present everywhere : he is omni- 
present, not only virtually, but also substantially ; 
for power without substance cannot subsist. All 
things are contained and move in him ; but with- 
out any mutual passion : he suffers nothing from 
the motions of bodies ; nor do they undergo any 
resistance from his omnipresence. It is con- 
fessed that God exists necessarily, and by the 
same necessity he exists always and everywhere. 
Hence also he must be perfectly similar, all eye, 
all ear, all arm, all the power of perceiving, un- 
derstanding, and acting ; but after a manner not 
at all corporeal, after a manner not like that of 
men, after a manner wholly to us unknown. He 
is destitute of all body, and all bodily shape; 
and therefore cannot be seen, heard, or touched ; 
nor ought he to be worshipped under the repre- 
sentation of any thing corporeal. We have ideas 
of the attributes of God, but do not know the 
substance of even any thing: we see only the 
figures and colors of bodies, hear only sounds, 
touch only the outward surfaces, smell only 
odors, and taste tastes ; and do not, cannot, by 
any sense, or reflex act, know their inward sub- 
stances ; and much less can we have any notion 
of the substance of God. We know him by his 
properties and attributes." 

It is observable that neither Moses, the first 
of the inspired penmen, nor any of the authors 
of the succeeding canonical books, enters into 
any proof of this first principle of religion, that 
there is a God. They all assume it as a truth 
commonly known and admitted. There is indeed 
in the sacred volume no allusion to the existence 
of atheistical sentiments till some ages after 
Moses, and then it is not quite clear whether 
speculative or practical Atheism be spoken of. 
From this circumstance we learn that previous 
to the time of Moses the idea of one supreme 
and infinitely perfect God was familiar to men : 
that it had descended to them from the earliest 
ages ; and also that it was a truth of original 
revelation, and not one which the sages of pre- 
ceding times had wrought out by rational inves- 
tigation and deduction. Had that been the fact, 
we might have expected some intimation of it ; 
and that if those views of God which are found 
in the Pentateuch were discovered by the suc- 
cessive investigations of wise men among the 
ancients, the progress of this wonderful dis- 
covery would have been marked by Moses ; or 
if one only had demonstrated this truth by his 
personal researches, that some grateful mention 
of so great a sage, of so celebrated a moral 
teachor, would have been made. A truth too so 
essontial to the whole Mosaic system, and upon 
which his own official authority rested, had it 



154 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



[PART II. 



originated from successful human investigation, 
would seem naturally to have required a state- 
ment of the arguments by which it had been 
demonstrated, as a fit introduction to a book in 
which he professed to record revelations received 
from this newly discovered being, and to enforce 
laws uttered under his command. Nothing of 
this kind is attempted ; and the sacred historian 
and lawgiver proceeds at once to narrate the acts 
of God, and to declare his will. The history 
which he wrote, however, affords the reason why 
the introduction of formal proof of the existence 
of one true God was thought unnecessary. The 
first man, we are informed, knew God, not only 
from his works, but by sensible manifestation 
and converse: the same Divine appearances were 
made to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob ; 
and when Moses wrote, persons were still living 
who had conversed with those who conversed 
with God, or were descended from the same fami- 
lies to whom God "at sundry times" had appeared 
in visible glory, or in angelic forms. These 
Divine manifestations were also matters of public 
notoriety among the primitive families of man- 
kind : from them the tradition was transmitted 
to their descendants ; and the idea once com- 
municated, was confirmed by every natural ob- 
ject which they saw around them. It continued 
even after the introduction of idolatry ; and has 
never, except among the most ignorant of the 
heathen, been to this day obliterated by polythe- 
istic superstitions. It was thus that the know- 
ledge of God was communicated to the ancient 
world. No discovery of this truth, either in the 
time of Moses, or in any former age, was made 
by human research; neither the date nor the 
process of it could therefore be stated in his 
writings ; and it would have been trifling to moot 
a question which had been so fully determined, 
and to attempt to prove a doctrine universally 
received. 

That the idea of a supreme First Cause was at 
first obtained by the exercise of reason, is thus 
contradicted by the facts that the first man re- 
ceived the knowledge of God by sensible converse 
with him, and that this doctrine was transmitted, 
with the confirmation of successive visible mani- 
festations, to the early ancestors of all nations. 
Whether the discovery, therefore, of the simple 
truth of the existence of a First Cause be within 
the compass of human powers, is a point which 
cannot be determined by matter of fact ; because 
it may be proved that those nations by whom 
that doctrine has been acknowledged had their 
origin from a common stock, resident in that 
part of the world in which the primitive revela- 
tions were given. They were, therefore, never 
in circumstances in which such an experiment 



upon the power or weakness of the human mind 
could be made. Among some uncivilized tribes, 
such as the Hottentots of Africa, and the abo- 
rigines of New South Wales, the idea of a Su- 
preme Being is probably entirely obliterated: 
some notions of spiritual existences, superior in 
power to man, and possessed of creative and de- 
structive powers, do however remain, naturally 
tending to that train of reflection which in better 
instructed minds issues in the apprehension of 
one Supreme and Divine Intelligence. But no 
instance has been known of the knowledge of 
God having thus, or by any other means, origi- 
nating in themselves, been recovered: if restored 
to them at all, it has been by the instruction 
of others, and not by the rational investigation 
of even superior minds in their own tribes. 
Wherever there has been sufficient mental culti- 
vation to call forth the exercise of the rational 
faculty in search of spiritual and moral truth, 
the idea of a First Cause has been previously 
known : wherever that idea has been totally ob- 
literated, the intellectual powers of man have 
not been in a state of exercise, and no curiosity 
as to such speculations has been awakened. 
Matter of fact does not, therefore, support the 
notion that the existence of God is discoverable 
by the unassisted faculties of man ; and there is, 
I conceive, very slender reason to admit the 
abstract probability. 

A sufficient number of facts are obvious to the 
most cursory observation to show that without 
some degree of education, man is wholly the 
creature of appetite. Labor, feasting, and sleep, 
divide his time, and wholly occupy his thoughts. 
If, therefore, we suppose a First Cause to be 
discoverable by human investigation, we must 
seek for the instances among a people whose 
civilization and intellectual culture have roused 
the mind from its torpor, and given it an interest 
in abstract and philosophic truth ; for to a people 
so circumstanced as never to have heard of God, 
the question of the existence of a First Cause 
must be one of mere philosophy. Religious mo- 
tives, whether of hope or fear, have no influence 
where no religion exists, and its very first prin- 
ciple is here supposed to be as yet undiscovered. 
Before, therefore, we can conceive the human 
mind to have reached a state of activity suffi- 
ciently energetic and curious even to commence 
such an inquiry, we must suppose a gradual pro- 
gress from the uncivilized state to a state of 
civil and scientific cultivation, and that without 
religion of any kind; without moral control; 
without principles of justice, except such as may 
have been slowly elaborated from those relations 
which concern the grosser interests of men, if 
even they be possible ; without conscience; with- 



CH. I.] 

out hope or fear in another life. That no society 
of civilized men has ever been constituted under 
such circumstances, is what no one "will deny: 
that it is possible to raise a body of men into 
that degree of civil improvement which would 
excite the passion for philosophic investigation 
without the aid of religion, which, in its lowest 
forms of superstition, admits in a defective de- 
gree what is implied in the existence of God, 
a superior, creative, governing, and destroying 
power, can have no proof, and is contradicted 
by every fact and analogy with which we are 
acquainted. Under the influence and control of 
religion, all states, ancient and modern, have 
hitherto been formed and maintained. It has 
entered essentially into all their legislative and 
gubernative institutions ; and Atheism is so ob- 
viously dissocializing, that even the philosophic 
Atheists of Greece and Ptome confined it to their 
esoteric doctrine, and were equally zealous with 
others to maintain the public religion as a re- 
straint upon the multitude, without which they 
clearly enough discerned that human laws, and 
merely human motives, would be totally ineffect- 
ual to prevent that selfish gratification of the 
passions, the enmities, and the cupidity of men, 
which would break up every community into its 
original fragments, and arm every man against 
his fellow. 

From this we may conclude that man without 
religion cannot exist in that state of civility and 
cultivation in which his intellectual powers are 
disposed to, or capable of, such a course of in- 
quiry as might lead him to a knowledge of God ; 
and that, as a mere barbarian, he would be 
wholly occupied with the gratification of •his 
appetites, or his sloth. Should we, however, 
suppose it possible that those who had no pre- 
vious knowledge of God, or of superior invisible 
powers, might be brought to the habits of civil 
life, and be engaged in the pursuit of various 
knowledge, (which itself however is very incredi- 
ble,) it would still remain a question, whether, 
provided no idea from tradition or instruction 
had been suggested of the existence of spiritual 
superior beings, or of a supreme Creator or 
Ruler, such a truth would be within the reach 
of man, even in an imperfect form. We have 
already seen that a truth may appear exceed- 
ingly simple, important, and evident, when once 
known, and on this account its demonstration 
may bo considered easy, which nevertheless has 
been the result of much previous research on tho 
part of the discoverer. ( Vide Part I. c. iv.) Tho 
abundant rational evidence of tho existence of 
God, which may now bo so easily collected, and 
which is so oonvinoing, is therefore no proof that 
without instruction from Heaven tho human 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



155 



mind would ever have made the discovery. 
"God is the only way to himself: he cannot in 
the least be come at, defined or demonstrated by 
human reason ; for where would the inquirer fix 
his beginning ? He is to search for something 
he knows not what: a nature without known 
properties : a being without a name. It is im- 
possible for such a person to declare or imagine 
what it is he would discourse of, or inquire into : 
a nature he has not the least apprehension of: 
a subject he has not the least glimpse of, in whole 
or in part: which he must separate from all 
doubt, inconsistencies, and errors: he must de- 
monstrate without one known or sure principle 
to ground it upon ; and draw certain necessary 
conclusions whereon to rest his judgment, with- 
out the least knowledge of one term or proposi- 
tion to fix his procedure upon; and therefore 
can never know whether his conclusion be conse- 
quent, or not consequent, truth or falsehood, 
which is just the same in science as in archi- 
tecture, to raise a building without a founda- 
tion." — Ellis's Knowledge of Divine Things. 

"Suppose a person, whose powers of argu- 
mentation are improved to the utmost pitch of 
human capacity, but who has received no idea of 
God by any revelation, whether from tradition, 
Scripture, or inspiration : how is he to convince 
himself that God is, and from whence is he to 
learn what God is ? That of which as yet he 
knows nothing, cannot be a subject of his 
thought, his reasonings, or his conversation. He 
can neither affirm nor deny till he know what 
is to be affirmed or denied. From whence, then, 
is our philosopher to divine, in the first instance, 
his idea of the infinite Being, concerning the 
reality of whose existence he is, in the second 
place, to decide?" — Hare's Preservative against 
Socinianism. 

"Would a single individual, or even a single 
pair of the human race, or indeed several pairs of 
such beings as we are, if dropped from the hands 
of their Maker in the most genial soil and climate 
of this globe, without a single idea or notion 
engraved on their minds, ever think of instituting 
such an inquiry ? or, short and simple as the 
process of investigation is, would they be able to 
conduct it, should it somehow occur to them ? 
No man who has paid due attention to the means 
by which all our ideas of external objects are 
introduced into our minds through the medium 
of the senses, or to the still more refined process 
by which, reflecting on what passes in our minds 
themselves, when wo combine or analyse these 
ideas, wo acquire the rudiments of all our know- 
ledge of intellectual objects, will pretend that 
they would. The efforts of intellect ueoessary 
to discover an unknown truth, are so much 



156 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



greater than those which may be sufficient to 
comprehend that truth, and feel the force of the 
evidence on which it rests, when fairly stated, 
that for one man whose intellectual powers are 
equal to the former, ten thousand are only equal 
to the latter." — Oleig's Stackhouse Intro. 

" Between matter and spirit, things visible and 
invisible, time and eternity, beings finite and 
beings infinite, objects of sense and objects of 
faith, the connection is not perceptible to human 
observation. Though we push our researches 
therefore to the extreme point whither the light 
of nature can carry us, they will in the end be 
abruptly terminated, and we must stop short at 
an immeasurable distance between the creature 
and the Creator." — Van Ililderfs Discourses. 

These observations have great weight; and 
though we allow that the argument which proves 
that the effects with which we are surrounded 
must have been caused, and thus leads us up 
through a chain of subordinate causes to one 
First Cause, has in it a simplicity, an obvious- 
ness, and a force, which, when we are previously 
furnished with the idea of God, makes it at first 
sight difficult to conceive that men, under any 
degree of cultivation, should be inadequate to it; 
yet, if the human mind ever commenced such an 
inquiry at all, it is highly probable that it would 
rest in the notion of an eternal succession of causes 
and effects, rather than acquire the ideas of 
creation in the proper sense, and of a Supreme 
Creator. Scarcely any of the philosophers of 
the most inquisitive ages of Greece, or those of 
their followers at Rome, though with the advan- 
tage of traditions conveying the knowledge of 
God, seem to have been capable of conceiving of 
creation out of nothing, (Vide Part I. c. iv.,) and 
they consequently admitted the eternity of 
matter. This was equally the case with the 
theistical, the atheistical, and the polytheistical 
philosophers. 1 It was not among them a subject 
of dispute, but taken for a point settled and not 
to be contradicted, that matter was eternal, and 
could not therefore be created. Against this 
notion, since the revelation of truth to man, phi- 
losophy has been able to adduce a very satis- 
factory argument ; but, though it is not a very 
recondite one, it was never discovered by philo- 
sophy while unaided by the Scriptures. In like 
manner philosophy can now furnish cogent argu- 
ments against an infinite succession of causes and 

1 " Few, if any, of the ancient pagan philosophers, ac- 
knowledged God to be, in the most proper sense, the 
Creator of the world. By calling him knfliovpybc, 'the 
Maker of the world,' they did not mean that he brought it 
out of non-existence into being, but only that ho built it 
out of preexistent materials, and disposed it into a regular 
form and order." See ample proofs and illustrations in 
c. 13, Part I., of Leland's Necessity of Revelation. 



effects ; but it does not appear probable that they 
could have been apprehended by those to whom 
the very notion of a First Cause had not been 
intimated. If, however, it were conceded that 
some glimmering of this great truth might, by 
induction, have been discovered by contemplative 
minds thus circumstanced, by what means could 
they have demonstrated to themselves that that 
great collection of bodies which we call the world 
had but one Creator — that he is an incorporeal 
Spirit — that he is eternal, self-existent, immortal, 
and independent ? Certain it is that the argu- 
ment a posteriori does not of itself fully confirm 
all these conclusions ; and the argument a priori, 
when directed to these mysterious points, is not, 
with all the advantages which we enjoy, so satis- 
factory as to leave no rational ground of doubt 
as to its conclusiveness. No sober man, we 
apprehend, would be content with that as the 
only foundation of his faith and hope. If indeed 
the idea of God were innate, as some have con- 
tended, the question would be set at rest. But 
then every human being would be in possession 
of it. Of this there is not only no proof at all, 
but the evidence of fact is against it ; and the 
doctrine of innate ideas may with confidence be 
pronounced a mere theory, assumed to support 
favorite notions, but contradicted by all experi- 
ence. We are all conscious that we gain the 
knowledge of God by instruction; and we observe 
that in proportion to the want of instruction men 
are ignorant, as of other things, so of God. 
Peter, the wild boy, who, in the beginning of the 
last century, was found in a wood in Germany, 
far from having any innate sense of God or reli- 
gion, seemed to be incapable of instruction ; and 
the aboriginal inhabitants of New Holland are 
found, to this day, in a state of knowledge but 
little superior, and certainly have no idea of the 
existence of one supreme Creator. 

It is therefore to be concluded that we owe the 
knowledge of the existence of God, and of his 
attributes, to revelation alone ; but, being now 
discovered, the rational evidence of both is 
copious and irresistible ; 2 so much so, that Athe- 
ism has never been able to make much progress 
among mankind where this revelation has been 
preserved. It is resisted by demonstrations too 
numerous, obvious, and convincing ; and is itself 

2 " Tell men there is a God, and their mind embraces it 
as a necessary truth : unfold his attributes, and they will 
see the explanation of them in his works. When the foun- 
dation is laid sure arid firm that there is a God, and his will 
the cause of all things, and nothing made but by his special 
appointment and command, then the order of beings will 
fill their minds with a due sense of the Divine Majesty, and 
they may be made a scale to raise juster conceptions of 
what is immortal and invisible." — Ellis's Knowledge of 
Divine Things. 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



157 



too easily proved to involve the most revolting 
absurdities. 

No subject has employed the thoughts and 
pens of the most profound thinkers more than 
the demonstration of the being and attributes of 
God ; and the evidence from fact, reason, and 
the nature of things, which has been collected, 
is large and instructive. These researches have 
not, however, brought to light any new attribute 
of God not found in Scripture. This is a strong 
presumption that the only source of our notions 
on this subject is the manifestation which God 
has been pleased to make of himself, and a con- 
firmation that human reason, if left to itself, had 
never made the slightest discovery respecting the 
Divine nature. But as to what is revealed, they 
are of great importance in the controversy with 
polytheism, and with that still more unnatural 
and monstrous perversion, the philosophy which 
denies a God. 

Demonstrations both & priori and d, posteriori, 
the former beginning with the cause, the latter 
with the effect, have been attempted not only of 
the being, but also of all the attributes ascribed 
to God in the Holy Scriptures. On each we shall 
offer some observations and illustrations, taking 
the argument & posteriori first, both because as to 
the simple question of the being of a God it is 
the only satisfactory and convincing proof, and 
especially because it is that only to which the 
Scriptures themselves refer us. "The heavens 
declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth 
his handy work." "For the invisible things of him 
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 
understood by the things that are made, even his 
eternal power and Godhead." "For by the great- 
ness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the 
Maker of them is seen." 

Nature, as one justly observes, proceeds from 
causes to effects ; but the most certain and suc- 
cessful investigations of man proceed from 
effects to causes, and this is the character of 
what logicians have called the argument ct pos- 
teriori. 

In philosophy it has been laid down as an 
axiom, "that no event or change comes to pass 
merely of itself, but that every change stands 
related to and implies the existence and influence 
of something else, in consequence of which such 
change comes to pass, and which may be regarded 
as the principle, beginning, or source of the 
change referred to it. Accordingly, the term 
cause is usually employed to denoto the supposed 
principle of change ; and the term effect is applied 
to the change considered in relation to the prin- 
ciple of change whence it proceeded. This axiom 
or principle is usually thus expressed — "For 
every effect there must be a cause." "Nothing 



exists or comes to pass without a cause." "Nihil 
turpius philosopho quam fieri sine causa quic- 
quam dicere." 

Rooted as this principle is in the common 
sense and the common observation and experience 
of mankind, it is assailed in the metaphysical 
Atheism of Hume, who appears to have borrowed 
his argument from the no less skeptical Hobbes; 
and the relation of cause and effect has, in con- 
sequence, been the subject of considerable con- 
troversy. 

Causes have been distributed by logicians into 
efficient, material, final, and formal. Efficient 
causes are the agents that produce certain effects : 
material causes are the subjects on which the agent 
performs his operation, or those contingent 
natures which lie within the reach of the agent 
to influence. Final causes are the motives or 
purposes which move to action, or the end for 
which any thing is done. Formal causes denote 
the changes resulting from the operation of the 
agent ; or that which determines a thing to be 
what it is, and distinguishes it from every thing 
else. 

It is with efficient causes, as understood in the 
above distribution, that we are principally con- 
cerned. Mr. Hume and his followers have laid 
it down, that there is no instance in which we 
are able to perceive a necessary connection be- 
tween two successive events ; or to comprehend 
in what manner the one proceeds from the other 
as its cause. From experience, they observe — 
indeed we learn — that there are many events 
which are constantly conjoined, so that the one 
invariably follows the other ; but it is possible, 
for any thing we know to the contrary, that this 
connection, though a constant one as far as our 
observation has reached, may not be a necessary 
connection ; nay, it is possible that there may be 
no necessary connections among any of the phe- 
nomena we see, and if there be any such connec- 
tions existing, we may rest assured that we shall 
never be able to discover them. This doctrine 
has, however, been admitted by many who not 
only deny the skeptical conclusions which Hobbes 
and Hume deduced from it, but who contend that 
it leads to a directly contrary conclusion. "The 
fallacy of this part of Mr. Hume's system," says 
Professor Stewart, "does not consist in his pre- 
mises, but in the conclusion which he draws from 
them. The word cause is used, both by philoso- 
phers and the vulgar, in two senses, which are 
widely different. When it is said that every 
change in nature indicates the operation of a 
cause, the word cause expresses something which 
is supposed to be necessarily connected with the 
change, and without which it could not have 
happened. This may be called the metaphysical 



158 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



meaning of the word ; and such causes may be 
called metaphysical or efficient causes. In natural 
philosophy, however, when we speak of one thing 
being the cause of another, all that we mean is, 
that the two are constantly conjoined ; so that 
when we see the one, we may expect the other. 
These conjunctions we learn from experience 
alone ; and without an acquaintance with them, 
we could not accommodate our conduct to the 
established course of nature. The causes which 
are the objects of our investigation in natural 
philosophy may, for the sake of distinction, be 
called physical causes." (Elements of the Philo- 
sophy of the Human Mind.) By this distinction 
and concession, all that is skeptical and atheistic 
in Hume's doctrine is indeed completely refuted ; 
for if metaphysical or efficient causes be allowed, 
and also that "power, force, energy, and causation 
are to be regarded as attributes of mind, and 
can exist in mind only," (Elements of the Philo- 
sophy of the Human Mind,) it is of little conse- 
quence to the argument as to the existence of a 
supreme First Cause, whether the constant suc- 
cession of events among physical causes has a 
necessary connection or not ; or, in other words, 
whether what is purely material can have the 
attribute of causation. The writer we have just 
quoted thinks that this doctrine is "more favor- 
able to Theism than even the common notions 
upon this subject;" — "if at the same time we 
admit the authority of that principle of the mind, 
which leads us to refer every change to an effi- 
cient cause," — "as it keeps the Deity always in 
view, not only as the first, but as the constantly 
operating, efficient cause in nature, and as the 
great connecting principle among all the various 
phenomena which we observe." (Elements of the 
Philosophy of the Human Mind.) This author 
still further thinks that Mr. Hume has unde- 
signedly furnished an antidote, by this error, to 
Spinozism itself. "Mr. Hume's doctrine, in the 
unqualified form in which he states it, may lead 
to other consequences not less dangerous; but 
if he had not the good fortune to conduct meta- 
physicians to the truth, he may at least be 
allowed the merit of having shut up for ever one 
of the most frequented and fatal paths which led 
them astray," — "the cardinal principle on which 
the whole system of Spinoza turns, being that all 
events, physical and moral, are necessarily linked 
together as causes and effects." — Dissertation 
prefixed to the Supplement of the Encyclo. Britt. 

When the doctrine is thus restricted to phy- 
sical causes, its dangerous tendency is greatly 
weakened, if not altogether neutralized; yet, 
notwithstanding the authority with which it has 
been supported, it may be suspected that it is 
radically unsound, and that it leads to conse- 



quences very contradictory to the experience of 
mankind, or, at best, that it is rather a philoso- 
phical paradox or quibble, than a philosophic 
discovery. What are called above metaphysical 
or efficient causes are admitted, with respect to 
mind, of which "power, force, energy, and causa- 
tion are attributes." "One kind of cause, 
namely, what a man, or any other living being, 
is to his own voluntary actions, or to those 
changes which he produces directly in himself, 
and indirectly in himself, by the occasional exer- 
tion of his own power," says Dr. Gregory, 
(Literary and Philosophical Essays,) "may be 
called for distinction's sake an agent. That 
there are such agents, and that many events are 
to be referred to them, as either wholly or partly 
their causes or principles of change, is not only 
certain but even self-evident." We are all con- 
scious of power to produce certain effects, and 
we are sure that there is between this cause and 
the effect produced, more than a mere relation 
of antecedence and sequence, for we are con- 
scious not only of designing to produce the 
effect, but of the exertion of power, though we do 
not always know the medium by which the 
power acts upon the object, as when we move 
the hand or the foot voluntarily, nor the mode 
in which the exerted energy connects itself 
with the result. Yet the result follows the will, 
and however often this is repeated, it is still 
the same. The relations between physical causes 
and effects must be different from this ; but if, 
according to the doctrine of Hume, it were only 
a relation of succession, the following absurdi- 
ties, as stated by Dr. Reid, (Reid's Essays,) would 
inevitably follow: "Night would be the cause 
of day, and day the cause of night ; for no two 
things have more constantly followed each other 
since the beginning of the world. Any thing, 
for what we know, may be the cause of any 
thing, since nothing is essential to a cause but 
its being constantly followed by the effect: 
what is unintelligent may be the cause of what 
is intelligent : folly may be the cause of wisdom, 
and evil of good; and thus all reasoning from 
the effect to the nature of the cause, and all 
reasoning from final causes, must be given up 
as fallacious." Physical causes, as, for example, 
what impulse is to motion, heat to expansion, 
fusion, and evaporation — the earth to the fall 
of a stone toward it, the sun and moon to the 
tides — express a relation different from that 
between man and any of his voluntary actions ; 
but it cannot be the same as the relation of 
priority and succession among things or events. 
Men have been mistaken, in some cases, in 
taking the circumstances of the succession of 
one event to another as a proof of their relation 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



159 



as cause and effect ; but even that shows that, 
in the fixed opinion of mankind, constant suc- 
cession, when there is an appearance of the 
dependence of one thing upon another, implies 
more than mere succession, and that what is 
considered as the cause has an efficiency either 
from itself or by derivation, by which the effect 
is brought to pass. It is truly observed by Dr. 
Brown, [Procedure, etc., of the Human Under- 
standing,) "We find by observation and experi- 
ence that such and such effects are produced ; 
but when we attempt to think of the reason why 
and the manner how the causes work those 
effects, then we are at a stand, and all our 
reasoning is precarious, or at best but probable 
conjecture." From hence however it would 
be a ridiculous conclusion, that because we are 
ignorant of the manner in which physical causes 
act, they do not act at all; or that none such 
exist in the ordinarily received sense; that 
is, that the effect is not dependent upon what is 
called the cause, and that the presence of the 
latter, according to the established laws of 
nature, is not necessary to the effect, so that 
without it the effect would not follow. The 
efficient cause may be latent, but the physical 
cause is that through which it operates, and must 
be supposed to have an adaptation to convey the 
power, so to speak, in some precise mode, by 
mechanical or other means, to the result, or there 
could neither be ingenuity and contrivance in 
the works of art, nor wisdom in the creation: 
a watch might indicate the hour without wheels, 
and a clod might give as copious a light to the 
planetary system as the sun. If the doctrine 
of Hume denies efficient causes, it contradicts all 
consciousness and the experience founded upon 
it : if it applies only to physical causes, it either 
confounds them with efficient causes, or says, 
in paradoxical language, only what has been 
better said by others, and that without any 
danger of involving either absurd or dangerous 
consequences. "When an event is produced 
according to a known law of nature, the law of 
nature is called the cause of that event. But a 
law of nature is not the efficient cause of any 
event: it is only the rule according to which 
the efficient cause acts. A law is a thing con- 
ceived in the mind of a rational being, not a 
thing which has a real existence, and therefore, 
like a motive, it can neither act nor be acted 
upon, and consequently cannot be an efficient 
cause. If there be no being that acts accord- 
ing to that law, it produces no effect." (Reid's 
JEssays.) "All things that are done in the 
world, are dono immediately by God himself, 
or by created intelligent beings: matter being 
evidently not at all capablo of any laws or 



powers whatever, any more than it is capable of 
intelligence; excepting only this one negative 
power, that every part of it will, of itself, always 
and necessarily continue in that state, whether 
of rest or motion, wherein it at present is. So 
that all those things which we commonly say 
are the effects of the natural powers of matter 
and laws of motion, of gravitation, attraction, or 
the like, are indeed, (if we will speak strictly 
and properly,) the effects of God's acting upon 
matter continually, and every moment, either 
immediately by himself, or mediately by some 
created intelligent beings. Consequently there 
is no such thing as what men commonly call the 
course of nature, or the powers of nature. The 
course of nature, truly and properly speaking, 
is nothing else but the will of God producing 
certain effects in a continued, regular, constant, 
and uniform manner." — Dr. Samuel Clarke. 

The true state of the case appears to be, 
1. That there are efficient causes, and that the 
relation between them and their effects is neces- 
sary, since, without the operation of the efficient, 
the effect would not take place. This we find 
in ourselves, and we proceed therefore upon the 
surest ground when we ascribe effects which 
are above human power, to a causation which 
is more than human, and, in the case of the 
phenomena of universal nature, to a Divine 
cause, or, in other words, to God. 2. That there 
are physical causes, between which and their 
effects there is a relation or connection very dif- 
ferent to that of a mere order of succession, 
which in fact is a relation which entirely excludes 
the idea of causation in any sense. According 
to the present established order of nature, this 
also may be termed a necessary connection, 
although not necessary in the sense of its being 
the only method by which the infinite and first 
efficient could produce the effect. His resources 
are doubtless boundless ; but having established 
a certain order in nature, or, in other words, 
having given certain powers and properties to 
matter, with reference to a mutual operation of 
different bodies upon each other, his supreme 
efficiency, his causing power, takes its direction 
and displays itself in this order, and is modified 
by the preestablished and constantly upheld 
properties through and by which it operates. So 
far, and in this sense, the relation between phy- 
sical causes and effects is a necessary one, and 
the doctrine of final causes is thus established 
by those wondrous arrangements and adapta- 
tions in the different parts of nature, and in 
individual bodies, which carry on and conduct 
the ever-acting efficiency of God to those wise 
and benevolent ends which ho has proposed. 
Thus tho sun, by virtue of a previously esta- 



160 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



blished adaptation between its own qualities, 
the earth's atmosphere, and the human eye, is 
the necessary cause of light and vision, though 
the true efficient be the Creator himself, ever 
present to his own arrangements : as the spring 
of a watch is the necessary cause of the motion 
of the wheels and indices, though the efficient, 
in the proper sense, is the artist himself who 
framed the whole. In these cases there is, how- 
ever, this difference to be observed, though it 
affects not the argument of a secondary physical 
causation, that the maker of a watch, finding 
certain bodies, endued with certain primary pro- 
perties, may array them one against the other, 
and so leave his work to go on without his con- 
stant impulse and interposition ; but in nature, 
the primary properties of matter, and its ex- 
istence itself, are derived and dependent, and need 
the constant upholding of Him who spake them 
out of nothing, and "by whom they all con- 
sist:' 

The relation of cause and effect, according to 
the common sense and observation of mankind, 
being thus established, 1 we proceed to the argu- 
ments which are founded upon it. 

The existence of God, once communicated to 
us by his own revelation, direct or traditional, is 
capable of ample proof, and receives an irresist- 
ible corroborative evidence, a posteriori. 

An argument a priori, is an argument from 
something antecedent to something consequent; 
from principle to corollary; from cause to effect. 
An argument & posteriori, on the contrary, is an 
argument from consequent to antecedent; from 
effect to cause. Both these kinds of proof have 
been resorted to in support of the doctrine of the 
existence of God; but it is on the latter only 
that any dependence can be placed, and the 
demonstration is too strong to need a doubtful 
auxiliary. 

The first argument, d, posteriori, for the exist- 
ence of a God, is drawn from our own actual 
existence, and that of other beings around us. 



l The language of every nation is formed on the connec- 
tion between cause and effect. For in every language 
there are not only many words directly expressing ideas 
of this subject, such as cause, efficiency, effect, production, 
produce, effectuate, create, generate, etc., or words equi- 
valent to these ; but every verb in every language, except 
the intransitive impersonal verbs, and the verb substan- 
tive, involves, of course, causation or efficiency, and refers 
always to an agent, or cause, in such a manner, that with- 
out the operation of this cause or agent, the verb would 
have no meaning. All mankind, except a few atheistical 
and skeptical philosophers, have thus agreed in acknow- 
ledging this connection, and they have acknowledged it as 
fully as others in their customary language, They have 
spoken exactly as other men speak, and the connection be- 
tween cause and effect is as often declared in their conver- 
sation and writings, and as much relied on, as in those of 
other men. — Dwight's Theologt, vol. i. p. 5. 



[part II. 



This, by an obvious error, has sometimes been 
called an argument d, prio-ri; but if our existence 
is made use of to prove the existence of a 
supreme Creator, it is unquestionably an argu- 
ment which proceeds from consequent to antece- 
dent, from effect to cause. This ancient and 
obvious demonstration has been placed in differ- 
ent views by different writers. Locke has, in 
substance, thus stated it. Every man knows 
with absolute certainty that he himself exists. 
He knows, also, that he did not always exist, but 
began to be. It is clearly certain to him that 
his existence was caused, and not fortuitous, and 
was produced by a cause adequate to the pro- 
duction. By an adequate cause, is invariably 
intended a cause possessing and exerting an effi- 
cacy sufficient to bring any effect to pass. In 
the present case, an adequate cause is one 
possessing and exerting all the understanding 
necessary to contrive and the power necessary 
to create such a being as the man in question. 
This cause is what we are accustomed to call 
God. The understanding necessary to contrive 
and the power necessary to create a being com- 
pounded of the human soul and body, admit of 
no limits. He who can contrive and create such 
a being, can contrive and create any thing. He 
who actually contrived and created man, certainly 
contrived and created all things. 

The same argument is given more copiously, 
but with great clearness, by Mr. Howe : — 

"We therefore begin with God's existence, for 
the evincing of which we may be most assured, 
First, that there hath been somewhat or other 
from all eternity; or that, looking backward, 
somewhat of real being must be confessed 
eternal. Let such as have not been used to 
think of any thing more than what they could 
see with their eyes, and to whom reasoning only 
seems difficult because they have not tried what 
they can do in it, but use their thoughts a little, 
and, by moving them a few easy steps, they will 
soon find themselves as sure of this as that they 
see, or hear, or understand, or are any thing. 

"For being sure that something now is, (that 
you see, for instance, or are something,) you 
must then acknowledge that certainly something 
always was, and hath ever been, or been from 
all eternity ; or else you must say that, some 
time, nothing was, or that all being once was 
not. And so, since you find that something now 
is, there was a time when all being did begin to 
be ; that is, that till that time there was nothing ; 
but now, at that time something first began to 
be. For what can be plainer than that if all 
being some time was not, and now some being is, 
every thing of being had a beginning ? And 
thence it would follow, that some being, that is, 



CH. I.] 

the first that ever began to be, did of itself start 
up out of nothing, or made itself to be when 
before nothing was. 

"But now, do you not plainly see that it is 
altogether impossible any thing should do so ; 
that is, when it was as yet nothing, and when 
nothing at all as yet was, that it should make 
itself, or come into being of itself? For surely 
making itself is doing something. But can that 
which is nothing do any thing ? Unto all doing 
there must be some doer. Wherefore a thing 
must be before it can do any thing ; and, there- 
fore, it would follow, that it was before it was ; 
or was and was not, was something and nothing, at 
the same time. Yea, and that it was diverse 
from itself; for a cause must be a distinct thing 
from that which is caused by it. Wherefore it 
is most apparent that some being hath ever been, 
or did never begin to be. 

" Whence, further, it is also evident, Secondly, 
that some being was uncaused, or was ever of 
itself without any cause. For what never was 
from another had never any cause, since nothing 
could be its own cause ; and somewhat, as 
appears from what hath been said, never was 
from another. Or, it may be plainly argued 
thus — that either some being was uncaused, or 
all being was caused. But if all being was 
caused, then some one at least was the cause of 
itself, which hath already been shown impos- 
sible. Therefore the expression commonly used 
concerning the first being, that it was of itself, 
is only to be taken negatively, that is, that it was 
not of another — not positively, as if it did some 
time make itself. Or, what there is positive 
signified by that form of speech, is only to be 
taken thus : that it was a being of that nature, 
as that it was impossible it should ever not have 
been, not that it did ever of itself step out of 
not being into being. 

"And now it is hence further evident, Thirdly, 
that some being is independent upon any other, 
that is, whereas it already appears that some 
being did never depend on any other as a pro- 
ductive cause, and was not beholden to any other, 
that it might come into being, it is thereupon 
equally evident that it is simply independent, or 
cannot be beholden to any for its continued 
being. For what did never need a productive 
cause, doth as little need a sustaining or con- 
serving cause. And, to make this more plain, 
either some being is independent, or all being is 
dependent. But there is nothing without the 
compass of all being whereon it may depend. 
Wherefore, to say that all being doth depend, is 
to say it depends on nothing; that is, that it 
depends not; for to depend on nothing is not to 
depend. It is, thorofore, a manifest contradic- 
11 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



161 



tion to say that all being doth depend, against 
which it is no relief to urge that all beings do 
circularly depend on one another. 1 For so, how- 
ever the whole circle or sphere of being should 
depend on nothing; or one at last depend on 
itself, which, negatively taken as before, is true, 
and the thing we contend for — that one, the 
common support of all the rest, depends not on 
any thing without itself. 

"Whence, also, it is plainly consequent, 
Fourthly, that such a Being is necessary, or doth 
necessarily exist: that is, that it is of such a 
nature as that it could not or cannot but be. 
For what is in being, neither by its own choice, 
nor any other's, is necessarily. But what was 
not made by itself, (which hath been shown to 
be impossible,) nor by any other, (as it hath been 
proved something was not,) it is manifest, it 
neither depended on its choice, nor any other's, 
that it is. And, therefore, its existence is not 
owing to choice at all, but to the necessity of its 
own nature. Wherefore it is always by a simple, 
absolute, natural necessity — being of a nature 
to which it is altogether repugnant and impos- 
sible ever not to have been, or ever to cease from 
being. And now, having gone thus far, and being 
assured that hitherto we feel the ground firm 
under us — that is, having gained a full certainty 
that there is an eternal, uncaused, independent, 
necessary Being, and therefore actually and 
everlastingly existing — we may advance one step 
farther, 

"And with equal assurance add, Fifthly, that 
this eternal, independent, uncaused, necessary 
Being is self-active ; that is, (which is at present 
meant,) not such as acts upon itself, but that 
which hath the power of acting upon other 
things in and of itself, without deriving it from 
any other. Or, at least that there is such a 
Being as is eternal, uncaused, etc., having the 



1 The notion of an infinite series of caused and successive 
beings is absurd ; for of tbis infinite series, either some one 
part has not been successive to any other, or elso all the 
several parts of it havo been sticcessive. If some one part 
of it was not successive, then it had a first part, which 
destroys the supposition of its infinity. If all the several 
parts of it havo been successive, then havo they all onco 
been future; but if they have all been future, a time may 
be conceived when none of them had existence ; and if so, 
then it follows, cither that all tho parts, and consequently 
tho whole, of this iufinito series must havo arisen from 
nothing, which is absurd ; or elso, that there must be some- 
thing in tho whole besides what is contained in all the parts, 
which is also absurd. Sco Clarke's Demonstration] and 
Wollaston's Religion of Nature. "A chain," Bays Dr. Palsy, 
"composed of an Infinite number of links, can no more 

support itself than a chain composed of a Unite number 

of links. If wo Increase the number of links from ton to 

a hundred, and from a hundred to a thousand, etc., wo mako 
not tho smallest approach, wo observe not the smallest 
tendency toward self-support." 



162 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART n. 



power of action in and of itself. For either 
such a being as hath been already evinced is of 
itself active or unactive, or hath the power of 
action of itself or not. If we will say the latter, 
let it be considered what we say, and to what 
purpose we say it. 

"1. We are to weigh what it is we affirm when 
we speak of an eternal, uncaused, independent, 
necessary Being, which is of itself totally un- 
active, or destitute of any active power. If we 
will say there is some such thing, we will confess, 
when we have called it something, it is a very 
silly, despicable, idle something, and a something 
(if we look upon it alone) as good as nothing. 
For there is but little odds between being 
nothing, and being able to do nothing. We will 
again confess eternity, self- origination, indepen- 
dency, necessity of existence, to be very great 
and highly dignifying attributes ; and import a 
most inconceivable excellency. For what higher 
glory can we ascribe to any being than to 
acknowledge it to have been from eternity of 
itself, 1 without being beholden to any other, and 
to be such as that it can be and cannot but be in 
the same state, self-subsisting and self-sufficient 
to all eternity ? But can our reason either direct 
or endure that we should so incongruously mis- 
place so magnificent attributes as these, and 
ascribe the prime glory of the most excellent 
Being unto that which is next to nothing ? But 
if any in the mean time will be so inconsiderate 
as to say this, let it 

"2. Be considered to what purpose they say 
it. Is it to exclude a necessary self-active 
Being? But it can signify nothing to that 
purpose. For such a Being they will be forced 
to acknowledge, let them do what they can, 
(beside putting out their own eyes,) notwith- 
standing. For why do they acknowledge any 
necessary being at all that was ever of itself? 
Is it not because they cannot otherwise, for their 
hearts, tell how it was ever possible that any 
thing at all could come into being ? But, find- 
ing that something is, they are compelled to 
acknowledge that something hath ever been, 
necessarily and of itself. No other account 
could be given how other things came to be. 
But what ? doth it signify any thing toward the 

1 " "We will acknowledge an impropriety in this word, 
and its conjugate, self-originate, sometimes hereafter used: 
which yet is recompensed by their conveniency ; as they 
may perhaps find who shall make trial how to express the 
sense intended by them in other words. And they are used 
without suspicion, that it can be thought they are meant 
to signify as if God ever gave original to himself; but in 
the negative 6ense, that he never received it from any 
other ; yea, and that he is, what is more than equivalent to 
his being self-caused, namely, a Being of himself so excel- 
lent as not to need or be capable to admit any cause." 



giving an account of the original of all other 
things to suppose only an eternal, self-subsisting, 
unactive Being? Did that cause other things 
to be ? Will not their own breath choke them 
if they attempt to utter the self-contradicting 
words, an unactive cause, which is efficient 
or the author of any thing ? And do they not 
see they are as far from their mark, or do no 
more toward the assigning an original to all 
other things, by supposing an eternal, unactive 
Being only, than if they supposed none at all ? 
That which can do nothing, can no more be the 
productive cause of another, than that which is 
nothing. Wherefore, by the same reason that 
hath constrained us to acknowledge an eternal, 
uncaused, independent, necessary Being, we are 
also unavoidably led to acknowledge this Being 
to be self-active, or such as hath the power of 
action in and of itself; or that there is certainly 
such a Being, who is the cause of all the things 
which our senses tell us are existent in the world. 

"For what else is left us to say or think ? Will 
we think fit to say that all things we behold were, 
as they now are, necessarily existent from all 
eternity ? That were to speak against our own 
eyes, which continually behold the rise and fall 
of living things, of whatsoever sort or kind, that 
can come under their notice. For all the things 
we behold are, in some respects or other, inter- 
nally or externally, continually changing, and 
therefore could never long be beheld as they are. 
And to say, then, they have been continually 
changing from eternity, and yet have been neces- 
sarily, is unintelligible and flat nonsense. For 
what is necessarily, is always the same; and 
what is in this or that posture necessarily, (that 
is, by an intrinsic, simple and absolute necessity, 
which must be here meant,) must be ever so. 
Wherefore to suppose the world in this or that 
state necessarily, and yet that such a state is 
changeable, is an impossible and self-contradict- 
ing supposition. 

"But now, since we find that the present state 
of things is changeable, and actually changing, 
and that what is changeable is not necessarily, 
and of itself; and since it is evident that there 
is some necessary Being, otherwise nothing could 
ever have been ; and that without action nothing 
could be from it ; since also all change imports 
somewhat of passion, and all passion supposes 
action ; and all action, active power ; and active 
power, an original seat or subject, which is self- 
active, or hath the power of action in and of 
itself; (for there could be no derivation of it 
from that which hath it not, and no first deriva- 
tion, but from that which hath it originally of 
itself; and a first derivation there must be, since 
all things that are, or ever have been, furnished 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



163 



with it, and not of themselves, must either im- 
mediately or mediately have derived it from that 
which had it of itself;) it is therefore manifest 
that there is a necessary, self-active being, the 
Cause and Author of this perpetually variable 
state and frame of things. 

"And hence, since we can frame no notion of 
life which self-active power doth not, at least, 
comprehend, (as upon trial we shall find that we 
cannot,) it is consequent, Sixthly, that this Being 
is also originally vital, and the root of all vitality, 
such as hath life in or of itself, and from whence 
it is propagated to every other living thing." 
[Living Temple.) 

The self-existent, eternal, self-active, and vital 
Being, whose necessary existence has thus been 
proved, is also intelligent; of which the demon- 
stration a posteriori is large and convincing. 
For since we are speaking of a Being who is him- 
self independent, and upon whom all things de- 
pend, and from the dependence of every thing 
we see around us, we necessarily infer a cause 
of them, whom we do not see, but who must 
himself be independent, and from whom they 
must have originated : their actual existence, and 
their being upheld and sustained, prove his 
power, and their arrangement, and wise and evi- 
dently intentional disposition, prove also his in- 
telligence. 

In the proposition that the self-existent and 
original cause of all things must be an intelligent 
Being, Dr. Samuel Clarke justly observes, lies 
the main question between us and Atheists. 
"For that something must be self-existent, and 
that that which is self-existent must be eternal 
and infinite, and the original cause of all things, 
will not bear much dispute. But all Atheists, 
whether they hold the world to be of itself eter- 
nal, both as to matter and form, or whether they 
hold the matter to be eternal, and the form con- 
tingent, or whatever hypothesis they frame, have 
always asserted and must maintain, either di- 
rectly or indirectly, that the self-existent Being 
is not an intelligent Being ; but either pure in- 
active matter, or (which in other words is the 
very same thing) a mere necessary agent. For a 
mere necessary agent must of necessity either be 
plainly and directly in the grossest sense unin- 
telligent, which was the notion of the ancient 
Atheists of the self-existent Being ; or else its 
intelligence, according to Spinoza and some 
moderns, must be wholly separate from any 
power of will and choice, which in respect of ex- 
cellency and perfection, or indeed to any common 
Bense, is the very same thing as no intelligence 
at all. Now that the sclf-oxistent Being is not 
Buch a blind and unintelligent necessity, but in 
the most proper sense an understanding and 



really active Being, does not indeed so obviously 
and directly appear to us by considerations a 
priori; but d posteriori, almost every thing in the 
world demonstrates to us this great truth, and 
affords undeniable arguments to prove that the 
world and all things therein are the effects of an 
intelligent and knowing Cause. 

"And 1st. Since in general there are mani- 
festly in things various kinds of powers, and very 
different excellences and degrees of perfection : 
it must needs be that, in the order of causes and 
effects, the cause must always be more excellent 
than the effect ; and consequently the self-exist- 
ent Being, whatever that be supposed to be, must 
of necessity (being the original of all things) 
contain in itself the sum and highest degree of 
all the perfections of all things. Not because 
that which is self-existent must therefore have 
all possible perfections ; (for this, though most 
certainly true in itself, yet cannot be so easily 
demonstrated d priori;) but because it is impos- 
sible that any effect should have any perfection 
which was not in the cause. For if it had, then 
that perfection would be caused by nothing: 
which is a plain contradiction. Now an unin- 
telligent being, it is evident, cannot be endued 
with all the perfections of all things in the 
world : because intelligence is one of those per- 
fections. All things therefore cannot arise from 
an unintelligent original ; and consequently the 
self-existent Being must of necessity be intelli- 
gent. 

"There is no possibility for an Atheist to avoid 
the force of this argument any other way than 
by asserting one of these two things : either that 
there is no intelligent Being at all in the universe ; 
or that intelligence is no distinct perfection, but 
merely a composition of figure and motion, as 
color and sounds are vulgarly supposed to be. 
Of the former of these assertions, every man's 
own consciousness is an abundant confutation. 
For they who contend that beasts are mere 
machines, have yet never presumed to conjecture 
that men are so too. And that the latter asser- 
tion (in which the main strength of Atheism lies) 
is most absurd and impossible, shall be shown. 

"For since in men in particular there is unde- 
niably that power which we call thought, intelli- 
gence, consciousness, perception or knowledge, 
there must of necessity either have been from 
eternity, without any original cause at all, an in- 
finite succession of men, whereof no one has had 
a necessary, but everyone a dependent and com- 
municated being; or else theso beings, endued 
with perception and consciousness, must at some 
time or other have arisen purely out of that 
which had no such quality as sense, perception, 
or consciousness; or elso they must have been 



164 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



produced by some intelligent superior Being. 
There never was nor can be any Atheist whatso- 
ever that can deny but one of these three sup- 
positions must be the truth. If, therefore, the 
two former can be proved to be false and impos- 
sible, the latter must be owned to be demonstra- 
bly true. Now that the first is impossible, is 
evident from what has been already said. And 
that the second is likewise impossible, may be 
thus demonstrated : — 

"If perception or intelligence be any real 
distinct quality or perfection, and not a mere 
effect or composition of unintelligent figure and 
motion, then beings endued with perception or 
consciousness can never possibly have arisen 
purely out of that which itself had no such 
quality as perception or consciousness : because 
nothing can ever give to another any perfection 
which it hath not either actually in itself, or at 
least in a higher degree. This is very evident : 
because, if any thing could give to another any 
perfection which it has not itself, that perfection 
would be caused absolutely by nothing : which is 
a plain contradiction. If any one here replies, 
(as Mr. Gildon has done in a letter to Mr. 
Blount,) that colors, sounds, tastes, and the like, 
arise from figure and motion, which have no such 
qualities in themselves ; or that figure, divisibility, 
mobility, and other qualities of matter, are con- 
fessed to be given from God, who yet cannot, 
without extreme blasphemy, be said to have any 
such qualities himself; and that therefore, in like 
manner, perception or intelligence may arise out 
of that which has no intelligence itself: the an- 
swer is very easy: First, that colors, sounds, 
tastes, and the like, are by no means effects 
arising from mere figure and motion : there being 
nothing in the bodies themselves, the objects of 
the senses, that has any manner of similitude to 
any of these qualities ; but they are plainly 
thoughts or modifications of the mind itself, 
which is an intelligent being ; and are not pro- 
perly caused, but only occasioned, by the im- 
pressions of figure and motion. Nor will it at 
all help an Atheist (as to the present question) 
though we should here make for him (that we 
may allow him the greatest possible advantage) 
even that most absurd supposition, that the mind 
itself is nothing but mere matter, and not at all 
an immaterial substance. For, even supposing 
it to be mere matter, yet he must needs confess 
it to be such matter as is endued not only with 
figure and motion, but also with the quality of 
intelligence and perception; and consequently, 
as to the present question, it will still come to 
the same thing : that colors, sounds, and the like, 
which are not qualities of unintelligent bodies, 
but perceptions of mind, can no more be caused 



[PART II. 

by or arise from mere unintelligent figure and 
motion, than color can be a triangle, or sound a 
square, or something be caused by nothing. 
Secondly : as to the other part of the objection, 
that figure, divisibility, mobility, and other quali- 
ties of matter, are (as we ourselves acknowledge) 
given it from God, who yet cannot, without ex- 
treme blasphemy, be said to have any such 
qualities himself; and that, therefore, in like 
manner, perception or intelligence may arise out 
of that which has no intelligence itself, the an- 
swer is still easier: that figure, divisibility, 
mobility, and other such like qualities of matter, 
are not real, proper, distinct, and positive powers, 
but only negative qualities, deficiencies, or im- 
perfections. And though no cause can communi- 
cate to its effect any real perfection which it has 
not itself, yet the effect may easily have many 
imperfections, deficiencies, or negative qualities, 
which are not in the cause. Though therefore 
figure, divisibility, mobility, and the like, (which 
are mere negations, as all limitations and all 
defects of powers are,) may be in the effect, and 
not in the cause, yet intelligence (which I now 
suppose, and shall prove immediately, to be a 
distinct quality, and which no man can say is a 
mere negation) cannot possibly be so. 

"Having, therefore, thus demonstrated that 
if perception or intelligence be supposed to be a 
distinct quality or perfection, (though even but 
of matter only, if the Atheist pleases,) and not a 
mere effect or composition of unintelligent figure 
and motion : then beings endued with perception 
or consciousness can never have arisen purely 
out of that which had no such quality as per- 
ception or consciousness ; because nothing can 
ever give to another any perfection which it has 
not itself: it will easily appear, secondly, that 
perception or intelligence is really such a distinct 
quality or perfection, and not possibly a mere 
effect or composition of unintelligent figure and 
motion ; and that for this plain reason, because 
intelligence is not figure, and consciousness is 
not motion. For whatever can arise from or be 
compounded of any things, is still only those very 
things of which it was compounded. And if in- 
finite compositions or divisions be made eter- 
nally, the things will be but eternally the same. 
And all their possible effects can never be any 
thing but repetitions of the same. For instance : 
all possible changes, compositions, or divisions 
of figure, are still nothing but figure ; and all 
possible compositions or effects of motion, can 
eternally be nothing but mere motion. If, there- 
fore, there ever was a time when there was 
nothing in the universe but matter and motion, 
there never could have been any thing else 
therein but matter and motion. And it would 



CH. I.] 

have been as impossible there should ever have 
existed any such thing as intelligence or con- 
sciousness ; or even any such thing as light, or 
heat, or sound, or color, or any of those we call 
secondary qualities of matter ; as it is now im- 
possible for motion to be blue or red, or for a 
triangle to be transformed into a sound. That 
which has been apt to deceive men in this matter, 
is this, that they imagine compounds to be some- 
what really different from that of which they are 
compounded — which is a very great mistake. 
For all the things of which men so judge, either, 
if they be really different, are not compounds 
nor effects of what men judge them to be, but 
are something totally distinct: as when the 
vulgar think colors and sounds to be properties 
inherent in bodies, when indeed they are purely 
thoughts of the mind ; or else, if they be really 
compounds and effects, then they are not differ- 
ent, but exactly the same that ever they were : 
as, when two triangles put together make a 
square, that square is still nothing but two 
triangles ; or when a square cut in halves makes 
two triangles, those two triangles are still only 
the two halves of a square ; or when the mixture 
of blue and yellow powder makes a green, that 
green is still nothing but blue and yellow inter- 
mixed, as is plainly visible by the help of micro- 
scopes. And, in short, every thing by composition, 
division, or motion, is nothing else but the very 
same it was before, taken either in whole or in 
parts, or in different place or order. He, there- 
fore, that will affirm intelligence to be the effect 
of a system of unintelligent matter in motion, 
must either affirm intelligence to be a mere name 
or external denomination of certain figures and 
motions, and that it differs from unintelligent 
figures and motions no otherwise than as a circle 
or triangle differs from a square, which is evi- 
dently absurd ; or else he must suppose it to be 
a real distinct quality, arising from certain mo- 
tions of a system of matter not in itself intelli- 
gent; and then this no less evidently absurd 
consequence would follow, that one quality in- 
hered in another ; for, in that case, not the sub- 
stance itself, the particles of which the system 
consists, but the mere mode, the particular mode 
of motion and figure, would be intelligent. 

" That the self-existent and original cause 
of all things is an intelligent Being, appears 
abundantly from the excellent variety, order, 
beauty, and wonderful contrivance and fitness 
of all things in the world to their proper and 
respective ends. Since, therefore, things are 
thus, it must unavoidably be granted, (even by 
the most obstinate Atheist,) cither that all plants 
and animals are originally the work of an intelli- 
gent Being, and created by him in time ; or that 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



165 



having been from eternity in the same order and 
method they now are in, they are an eternal 
effect of an eternal intelligent Cause continually 
exerting his infinite power and wisdom ; or else 
that without any self-existent original at all, 
they have been derived one from another in an 
eternal succession, by an infinite progress of de- 
pendent causes. The first of these three ways is 
the conclusion we assert : the second (so far as 
the cause of Atheism is concerned) comes to the 
very same thing ; and the third I have already 
shown to be absolutely impossible and a contra- 
diction. 

" Supposing it was possible that the form of 
the world, and all the visible things contained 
therein, with the order, beauty, and exquisite 
fitness of their parts ; nay, supposing that 
even intelligence itself, with consciousness and 
thought, in all the beings we know, could possi- 
bly be the result or effect of mere unintelligent 
matter, figure, and motion; (which is the most 
unreasonable and impossible supposition in the 
world ;) yet even still there would remain an un- 
deniable demonstration that the self-existent 
Being (whatever it be supposed to be) must be 
intelligent. For even these principles them- 
selves, unintelligent figure and motion, could 
never have possibly existed, without there had 
been before them an intelligent cause. I instance 
in motion. It is evident there is now such a 
thing as motion in the world ; which either began 
at some time or other, or was eternal. If it 
began at any time, then the question is granted 
that the First Cause is an intelligent being ; for 
mere unintelligent matter, and that at rest, it is 
manifest, could never of itself begin to move. 
On the contrary, if motion was eternal, it was 
either eternally caused by some eternal intelli- 
gent Being, or it must of itself be necessary and 
self-existent; or else, without any necessity in 
its own nature, and without any external neces- 
sary cause, it must have existed from eternity 
by an endless successive communication. If mo- 
tion was eternally caused by some eternal intelli- 
gent Being, this also is granting the question as 
to the present dispute. If it was of itself neces- 
sary and self-existent, then it follows that it 
must be a contradiction in terms to suppose any 
matter to be at rest : besides, (as there is no end 
of absurdities,) it must also imply a contradic- 
tion to suppose that thore might possibly have 
been originally more or less motion in the uni- 
verse than thero actually was; which is so very 
absurd a consequence that Spinoza himself, 
though he expressly asserts all things to be ne- 
cessary, yet seems ashamed here to speak out 
his opinion, or, rather, plainly contradicts him- 
self in the question about the original of motion. 



166 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



But if it be said, lastly, that motion, without 
any necessity in its own nature, and without any 
external necessary cause, has existed from eter- 
nity, merely by an endless successive communica- 
tion, as Spinoza inconsistently enough seems to 
assert — this I have before shown to be a plain 
contradiction. It remains, therefore, that motion 
must of necessity be originally caused by some- 
thing that is intelligent, or else there never could 
have been any such thing as motion in the world. 
And consequently the self-existent Being, the 
original Cause of all things, (whatever it is sup- 
posed to be,) must of necessity be an intelligent 
Being." 

The argument from the existence of motion to 
the existence of an intelligent First Cause is so 
convincing, that the further illustration of it, in 
which the absurdities of Atheism are exhibited 
in another view, will not be unacceptable. 

"Consider that all this motion and motive- 
power must have some source and fountain 
diverse from the dull and sluggish matter moved 
thereby, unto which it already hath appeared 
impossible that it should originally and essen- 
tially belong. 

"Also that the mighty active Being, which hath 
been proved necessarily existent, and whereto it 
must first belong, if we suppose it destitute of 
the self-moderating principle of wisdom and 
counsel, cannot but be always exerting its mo- 
tive-power, invariably used to the same degree, 
that is, to its very utmost, and can never cease 
or fail to do so. For its act knows no limit but 
that of its power, (if this can have any,) and its 
power is essential to it, and its essence is neces- 
sary. 

" Further, that the motion impressed upon the 
matter of the universe must hereupon necessarily 
have received a continual increase ever since it 
came into being. 

"That supposing this motive-power to have 
been exerted from eternity, it must have been 
increased long ago to an infinite excess. 

"That hence the coalition of the particles of 
matter for the forming of any thing, had been 
altogether impossible ; for let us suppose this 
exerted motive-power to have been, any instant, 
but barely sufficient for such a formation, be- 
cause that could not be dispatched in an instant, 
it would, by its continual increase, be grown so 
over-sufficient, as, in the next instant, to dissi- 
pate the particles but now beginning to unite. 

"At least it would be most apparent, that if 
ever such a frame of things as we now behold 
could have been produced, that motive-power, 
increased to so infinite an excess, must have 
shattered the whole frame in pieces many an 
age ago, or rather never have permitted that 



such a thing as we call an age could possibly 
have been. 

"Our experience gives us not to observe any 
such destructive or remarkable changes in the 
course of nature ; and this indeed (as was long 
ago foretold) is the great argument of the athe- 
istical scoffers in these latter days, that things 
remain as they were from the beginning of the 
creation to this day. But let it be soberly 
weighed, how it is possible that the general con- 
sistency which we observe in things throughout 
the universe, and their steady orderly posture, 
can stand with this momently increase of motion. 

" For we see when we throw a stone out of our 
hand, whatever of the impressed force it imparts 
to the air through which it makes its way, or 
whatever degree of it vanishes of itself, it yet 
retains a part a considerable time, which carries 
it all the length of its journey, and does not 
vanish and die away on the sudden. So when 
we here consider in the continual momently re- 
newal of' the same force, always necessarily 
going forth from the same mighty agent, with- 
out any moderation or restraint, that every fol- 
lowing impetus doth so immediately overtake the 
former, that whatever we can suppose lost is yet 
abundantly over-supplied : upon the whole, it 
cannot fail to be ever growing, and before now 
must have grown to that all-destroying excess 
before mentioned. 

"It is therefore evident, that as without the 
supposition of a self-active Being there could be 
no such thing as motion, so without the supposi- 
tion of an intelligent Being, (that is, that the 
same Being be both self-active and intelligent,) 
there could be no regular motion, such as is ab- 
solutely necessary to the forming and continuing 
of any of the compacted bodily substances which 
our eyes behold every day ; yea, or of any what- 
soever, suppose we their figures, their shapes, to 
be as rude, as deformed, and useless as we can 
imagine, much less such as the exquisite compo- 
sitions and the exact order of things in the uni- 
verse do evidently require and discover." — 
Howe's Living Temple. 

The proof that the original cause of all things 
is an intelligent Being, alluded to above by Dr. 
S. Clarke, as exhibited by the excellent variety, 
order, beauty, and wonderful contrivance and 
fitness of all things in the world to their proper 
and respective ends, has, from the copious and 
almost infinite illustration of which it is capable, 
been made a distinct branch of theological 
science. It is the most obvious and popular, and 
therefore the most useful argument in favor of 
the intelligence of that Being of infinite perfec- 
tions we call God : it is that to which the Holy 
Scriptures refer us for the confirmation of their 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



167 



own doctrine on this subject, and it has been j 
constantly resorted to by all writers on this first ! 
principle of religion in every age. When it has 
been considered separately, and the proofs from 
nature have been largely given, it has been de- 
signated "Natural Theology," and has given rise 
to many important works, equally entertaining, 
instructive, and convincing. 1 The basis, and 
indeed the plan, of Dr. Paley's Natural Theology, 
are found in the third and following chapters of 
Howe's Living Temple ; but the outline has been 
filled up and the subject expanded by that able 
writer with great felicity of illustration, and 
acute and powerful argument. From the plat- 
form of Paley's work, as it may be found in 
the " Living Temple," I shall give a few extracts, 
which, though they appear in the '■' Natural The- 
ology" in a more expansive form, strengthened 
by additional examples, and clothed in some of the 
instances given with a more correct philosophy, 
are not superseded. They bear upon the con- 
clusion with an irresistible force, and are ex- 
pressed with a noble eloquence, though in lan- 
guage a little antiquated in structure. 

"As nothing can be produced without a cause, 
so no cause can work above or beyond its own 
capacity and natural aptitude. Whatsoever there- 
fore is ascribed to any cause, above and beyond 
its ability, all that surplusage is ascribed to no 
cause at all ; and so an effect, in that part at 
least, were supposed without a cause. And if it 
then follow, when an effect is produced, that it 
had a cause, why doth it not equally follow, 
when an effect is produced, having manifest 
characters of wisdom and design upon it, that it 
had a wise and designing cause ? If it be said, 
there are some fortuitous or casual (at least un- 
designed) productions, that look like the effects 
of wisdom and contrivance, but indeed are not, 
as the birds so orderly and seasonably making 
their nests, the bees their comb, and the spider 
its web, which are capable of no design, that 
exception needs to be well proved before it be 
admitted ; and that it be plainly demonstrated, 
both that these creatures are not capable of 
design, and that there is not a universal, design- 
ing cause, from whose directive as well as opera- 
tive influence, no imaginable effect or event can 
be exempted. In which case it will no more be 
necessary that every creature that is observed 
steadily to work toward an end, should itself 
design and know it, than that an artificer's tools 
should know what he is doing with them ; but 
if they do not, it is plain he must. And surely 
it lies upon them who so except, to prove in this 

i Bee Boyle on Final Causes, Ray's Wisdom of God in thn 
Creation, Dorham's Astro and l'hysico Theology, Sturm's 
Reflection!!, Paley's Natural Theology, etc. 



case what they say, and not to be so precarious as 
to beg, or think us so easy as to grant, so much, only 
because they have thought fit to say it, or would 
fain have it so, that is, that this or that strange 
event happened without any designing cause. 

"But, however, I would demand, of such as 
make this exception, whether they think there 
be any effect at all, to which a designing cause 
was necessary, or which they will judge impossi- 
ble to have been otherwise produced than by the 
direction and contrivance of wisdom and counsel ? 
I little doubt but there are thousands of things, 
labored and wrought by the hand of man, which 
they would presently, upon first sight, pronounce 
to be the effects of skill, and not of chance ; yea, 
if they only considered their frame and shape, 
though they understood not their use and end, 
they would surely think at least some effects or 
other sufficient to argue to us a designing cause. 
And would they but soberly consider and resolve 
what characters or footsteps of wisdom and 
design might be reckoned sufficient to put us out 
of doubt, would they not, upon comparing, be 
brought to acknowledge that there are nowhere 
any more conspicuous and manifest than in the 
things daily in view, that go ordinarily, with us, 
under the name of works of nature ? Whence it 
is plainly consequent, that what men commonly 
call universal nature, if they would be content no 
longer to lurk in the darkness of an obscure and 
uninterpreted word, they must confess is nothing 
else but common providence, that is, the universal 
power which is everywhere active in the world, 
in conjunction with the unerring wisdom which 
guides and moderates all its exertions and opera- 
tions, or the wisdom which directs and governs 
that power. They must therefore see cause to 
acknowledge that an exact order and disposition 
of parts in very neat and elegant compositions, 
do plainly argue wisdom and skill in the contri- 
vance : only they will distinguish and say, It is 
so in the effects of art, but not of nature. What is 
this, but to deny in particular what they granted in 
general ? to make what they have said signify noth- 
ing more than if they had said, such exquisite order 
of parts is the effect of wisdom, where it is the 
effect of wisdom ; but it is not the effect of wisdom, 
where it is not the effect of wisdom ; and to 
trifle, instead of giving a reason why things are 
so ? And whence take they their advantage for 
this trifling, or do they hope to hide their folly 
in it, but that they think while what is meant by 
art is known, what is meant by nature cannot be 
known? But if it bo not known, how can they 
tell but their distinguishing members are coinci- 
dent, and run into one? Yea. and if they would 
allow the thing itself to Bpeak, and the effect to 
confess and dictate the name of its own cause, 



168 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



how plain is it that they do ran into one ; and 
that the expression imports no impropriety, 
which we somewhere find in Cicero, The art of 
nature : or rather, that nature is nothing else bnt 
Divine art, at least in as near an analogy as be- 
tween any thing Divine and human ? Bnt, that 
this matter (even the thing itself, waiving for the 
present the consideration of names) may be a 
little more narrowly discussed and searched into, 
let some curious piece of workmanship be offered 
to such a skeptic's view, the making whereof he 
did not see, nor of any thing like it, and we will 
suppose him not told that this was made by the 
hand of any man, nor that he hath any thing to 
guide his judgment about the way of its becoming 
what it is, but only his own view of the thing 
itself ; and yet he shall presently, without hesi- 
tation, pronounce, this was the effect of much 
skill. I would here inquire, Why do you so pro- 
nounce? Or, What is the reason of this your 
judgment ? Surely he would not say he hath no 
reason at all for this so confident and unwavering 
determination ; for then he would not be deter- 
mined, but speak by chance, and be indifferent 
to say that or any thing else. Somewhat or 
other there must be, that, when he is asked, Is 
this the effect of skill? shall so suddenly and 
irresistibly captivate him into an assent that it is 
so, that he cannot think otherwise. Nay, if a 
thousand men were asked the same question, 
they would as undoubtingly say the same thing ; 
and then, since there is a reason for this judg- 
ment, what can be devised to be the reason, but 
that there are so manifest characters and evi- 
dences of skill in the composure, as are not 
attributable to any thing else ? Xow here I 
would further demand, Is there any thing in this 
reason ? Yea, or Xo ? Doth it signify any thing, 
or is it of any value for the purpose for which it 
is alleged ? Surely it is of very great, inasmuch 
as, when it is considered, it leaves it not in a 
man's power to think any thing else ; and what 
can be said more potently and efficaciously to 
demonstrate ? But now, if this reason signify 
any thing, it signifies thus much : that whereso- 
ever there are equal characters, and evidences 
of skill, a skilful agent must be acknowledged. 
And so it will (in spite of cavil) conclude uni- 
versally, and abstractedly, from what we can 
suppose distinctly signified by the terms of art 
and nature, that whatsoever effect hath such, or 
equal characters of skill upon it, did proceed 
from a skilful cause. That is, that if this effect 
be said to be from a skilful cause, as having 
manifest characters of skill upon it, then every 
such effect, that hath equally manifest characters 
of skill upon it, must be, with equal reason, 
concluded to be from a skilful cause. 



[paet n. 

"We will acknowledge skill to act, and wit to 
contrive, to be very distinguishable things, and 
in reference to some works, (as the making some 
curious automaton, or self-moving engine,) are 
commonly lodged in divers subjects : that is, the 
contrivance exercises the wit and invention of 
one, and the making, the manual skill and dex- 
terity of others ; but the manifest characters of 
both will be seen in the effect: that is, the 
curious elaborateness of each several part shows 
the latter, and the order and dependence of parts, 
and their conspiracy to one common end. the 
former. Each betokens design ; or at least the 
smith or carpenter must be understood to design 
his own part, that is, to do as he was directed : 
both together do plainly bespeak an agent that 
knew what he did ; and that the thing was not 
done by chance, or was not the casual product 
of only being busy at random, or making a care- 
less stir, without aiming at any thing. And this, 
no man that is in his wits would, upon sight of 
the whole frame, more doubt to assent unto, than 
that two and two make four. And he would 
certainly be thought mad, that should profess to 
think that only by some one's making a bustle 
among several small fragments of brass, iron, 
and wood, these parts happened to be thus 
curiously formed, and came together into this 
; frame, of their own accord. 

i; 0r lest this should be thought to intimate too 
j rude a representation of their conceit who think 
' this world to have fallen into this frame and 
; order wherein it is, by the agitation of the moving 
parts, or particles of matter, without the direc- 
• tion of a wise mover; and that we may also 
make the case as plain as is possible to the most 
j ordinary capacity, we will suppose (for instance) 
j that one who had never before seen a watch, or 
any thing of that sort, hath now this little engine 
I first offered to his view : can we doubt, but that 
he would, upon the mere sight of its figure, 
| structure, and the very curious workmanship 
: which we will suppose appearing in it. presently 
j acknowledge the artificer's hand? But if he 
were also made to understand the use and pur- 
pose for which it serves, and it were distinctly 
! shown him how each thing contributes, and all 
things in this little fabric concur to this purpose, 
the exact measuring and dividing of time by 
minutes, hours, and months, he would certainly 
both confess and praise the great ingenuity of 
the first inventor. But now if a bystander, be- 
holding him in this admiration, would undertake 
to show a profounder reach and strain of wit, 
and should say. Sir, you are mistaken concerning 
the composition of this so much admired piece : 
it was not made or designed by the hand or skill 
of any one : there were only an innumerable 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



company of little atoms or very small bodies, 
much too small to be perceived by your sense, 
that were busily frisking and plying to and fro 
about the place of its nativity ; and, by a strange 
chance or a stranger fate, and the necessary laws 
of that motion which they were unavoidably put 
into, by a certain boisterous, undesigning mover, 
they fell together into this small bulk, so as to 
compose this very shape and figure, and with 
this same number and order of parts which you 
now behold : one squadron of these busy parti- 
cles (little thinking what they were about) agree- 
ing to make one wheel, and another a second, in 
that proportion which you see : others of them 
also falling and becoming fixed in so happy a 
posture and situation as to describe the several 
figures by which the little moving fingers point 
out the hours of the day, and the day of the 
month ; and all conspired to fall together, each 
into its own place, in so lucky a juncture, as 
that the regular motion failed not to ensue which 
we see is now observed in it: — what man is either 
so wise or so foolish (for it is hard to determine 
whether the excess or the defect should best 
qualify him to be of this faith) as to be capable 
of being made believe this piece of natural 
history ? And if any one should give this account 
of the production of such a trifle, would he not 
be thought in jest? But if he persist, and 
solemnly profess that thus he takes it to have 
been, would he not be thought in good earnest 
mad ? And let but any sober reason judge 
whether we have not unspeakably more madness 
to contend against in such as suppose this world, 
and the bodies of living creatures, to have fallen 
into this frame and orderly disposition of parts 
wherein they are, without the direction of a wise 
and designing cause? And whether there be not 
an incomparably greater number of most wild 
and arbitrary suppositions in their fiction than in 
this ? Besides the innumerable supposed repeti- 
tions of the same strange chances all the world 
over: even as numberless, not only as productions, 
but as the changes that continually happen to all 
the things produced. And if the concourse of 
atoms could make this world, why not (for it is 
but little to mention such a thing as this) a 
porch, or a temple, or a house, or a city, as Tully 
speaks, which were less operous and nmch more 
easy performances ? 

"It is not to be supposed that all should be 
astronomers, anatomists, or natural philosophers, 
that shall read these lines ; and therefore it is 
intended not to insist upon particulars, and to 
make as littlo use as is possible of terms that 
would only be agreeable to that supposition. But 
surely such general, easy reflections on the frame 
of the universe, and the order of parts in the 



bodies of all sorts of living creatures, as the 
meanest ordinary understanding is capable of, 
would soon discover incomparably greater evi- 
dence of wisdom and design in the contrivance 
of these, than in that of a watch or a clock. 
And if there were any whose understandings are 
but of that size and measure as to suppose that the 
whole frame of the heavens serves to no other pur- 
pose than to be of some such use to us mortals here 
on earth as that instrument ; if they would but 
allow themselves leisure to think and consider, 
they might discern the most convincing and amaz- 
ing discoveries of wise contrivance and design (as 
well as the vastest might and power) in disposing 
things into so apt a subserviency to that meaner 
end; and that so exact a knowledge is had 
thereby of times and seasons, days and years, as 
that the simplest idiot in a country may be able 
to tell you, when the light of the sun is with- 
drawn from his eyes, at what time it will return, 
and when it will look in at such a window, and 
when at the other ; and by what degrees his days 
and nights shall either be increased or dimi- 
nished; and what proportion of time he shall 
have for his labors in this season of the year, 
and what in that, without the least suspicion or 
fear that it shall ever fall out otherwise. 

"For let us suppose (what no man can pre- 
tend is more impossible, and what any man must 
confess is less considerable than what our eyes 
daily see) that in some part of the air near this 
earth, and within such limits as that the whole 
scene might be conveniently beheld at one view, 
there should suddenly appear a little globe of 
pure flaming light resembling that of the sun, 
and suppose it fixed as a centre to another body, 
or moving about that other as its centre — as this 
or that hypothesis best pleases us — which we 
could plainly perceive to be a proportionably 
little earth, beautified with little trees and woods, 
flowery fields and flowing rivulets, with larger 
lakes into which these discharge themselves; 
and suppose we see other planets all of propor- 
tionable bigness to the narrow limits assigned 
them, placed at their due distances, and playing 
about this supposed earth or sun, so as to mea- 
sure their shorter and soon absolved days, months, 
and years, or two, twelve, or thirty years, ac- 
cording to their supposed circuits ; — would they 
not presently, and with great amazement, confess 
an intelligent contriver and maker of this whole 
frame, above a Posidonius or any mortal ? Ami 
have we not, in the present framo of things, a 
demonstration of wisdom and counsel as far 
exceeding that which is now supposed, as the 
making somo toy or bauble to please a ehild is 
less an argumont of wisdom than the OQntfivanOG 
of somowhat that is of apparent and universal 



170 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



use ? Or if we could suppose this present state 
of things to have but newly begun, and ourselves 
preexistent, so that we could take notice of the 
very passing of things out of horrid confusion 
into the comely order they are now in, would not 
this put the matter out of doubt? But might 
what would yesterday have been the effect of 
wisdom, better have been brought about by 
chance, five or six thousand years, or any longer 
time ago ? It speaks not want of evidence in the 
thing, but want of consideration and of exercis- 
ing our understandings, if what were new would 
not only convince but astonish, and what is old, 
of the same importance, doth not so much as 
convince! 

"And let them that understand any thing of 
the composition of a human body, or indeed of 
any living creature, but bethink themselves whe- 
ther there be not equal contrivance, at least, 
appearing in the composure of that admirable 
fabric, as of any the most admired machine or 
engine devised and made by human skill and 
wit. If we pitch upon any thing of known and 
common use, as suppose again a clock or watch, 
which is no sooner seen than it is acknowledged, 
as hath been said, the effect of a designing cause, 
will we not confess as much of the body of a man ? 
Yea, what comparison is there, when in the 
structure of some one single member, as a hand, 
a foot, an eye, or ear, there appears, upon a dili- 
gent search, unspeakably greater curiosity, 
whether we consider the variety of parts, their 
exquisite figuration, or their apt disposition to 
the distinct uses and ends these members serve 
for, than is to be seen in any clock or watch ? 
Concerning which uses of the several parts in 
man's body, Galen, so largely discoursing in 
seventeen books, inserts on the leg this epipho- 
nema, upon the mention of one particular instance 
of our most wise Maker's provident care : 'Unto 
whom (saith he) I compose these commentaries' 
— meaning his present work of unfolding the 
useful figuration of the human body — 'as certain 
hymns or songs of praise, esteeming true piety 
to consist in this, that I first may know, and then 
declare to others, his wisdom, power, providence, 
and goodness, than in sacrificing to him many 
hecatombs ; and in the ignorance whereof there 
is greatest impiety, rather than in abstaining from 
sacrifice.' 'Nor,' as he adds in the close of that 
excellent work, 'is the most perfect natural arti- 
fice to be seen in man only; bnt you may find 
the like industrious design and wisdom of the 
Author in any hiving creature which you shall 
please to dissect ; and by how much the less it 
is, so much the greater admiration shall it excite 
in you : which those artists show that describe 
some great thing, contractedly, in a very small 



[PART II. 

space : as that person who lately engraved Phae- 
ton carried in his chariot with his four horses 
upon a little ring — a most incredible sight ! But 
there is nothing in matters of this nature more 
strange than in the structure of the leg of a flea.' 
How much more might it be said of all its inward 
parts! 'Therefore,' as he adds, 'the greatest 
commodity of such a work accrues not to physi- 
cians, but to them who are studious of nature, 
namely, the knowledge of our Maker's perfec- 
tion, and that (as he had said a little above) it 
establishes the principle of the most perfect the- 
ology: which theology is much more excellent 
than all medicine.' 

"It were too great an undertaking, and beyond 
the designed limits of this discourse, (though it 
would be to excellent purpose if it could be done 
without amusing terms, and in that easy, fami- 
liar way as to be capable of common use,) to 
pursue and trace distinctly the prints and foot- 
steps of the admirable wisdom which appears in 
the structure and frame of this outer temple. 
For even our bodies themselves are said to be the 
temples of the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor. vi. 19. And 
to dwell awhile in the contemplation and disco- 
very of those numerous instances of most appa- 
rent, ungainsayable sagacity and providence 
which offer themselves to view in every part and 
particle of this fabric : how most commodiously 
all things are ordered in it ! With how strangely 
cautious circumspection and foresight not only 
destructive, but even (perpetually) vexatious and 
afflicting incongruities are avoided and provided 
against, to pose ourselves upon the sundry ob- 
vious questions that might be put for the evincing 
of such provident foresight ! As, for instance, 
how comes it to pass that the several parts which 
we find to be double in our bodies, are not single 
only ? Is this altogether by chance ? That there 
are two eyes, ears, nostrils, hands, feet, etc.: 
what a miserable, shiftless creature had man 
been, if there had only been allowed him one 
foot! A seeing, hearing, talking, unmoving 
statue. That the hand is divided into fingers ? 
those so conveniently situate, one in so fitly 
opposite a posture to the rest ? 

"And what if some one pair or other of these 
parts had been universally wanting — the hands, 
the feet, the eyes, the ears ? How great a misery 
had it inferred upon mankind ! and is it only a 
casualty that it is not so ? That the back-bone 
is composed of so many joints, (twenty-four, 
besides those of that which is the basis and sus- 
tainer of the whole,) and is not all of a piece, by 
which stooping, or any motion of the head or 
neck diverse from that of the whole body, had 
been altogether impossible : that there is such 
variety and curiosity in the ways of joining the 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY 



171 



bones together in that, and other parts of the 
body: that in some parts they are joined by mere 
adherence of one to another, either with or with- 
out an intervening medium, and both these ways 
so diversely : that others are fastened together 
by proper jointing, so as to suit and be accom- 
panied with motion, either more obscure or more 
manifest, and this either by a deeper or more 
superficial insertion of one bone into another, or 
by a mutual insertion, and that in different ways ; 
and that all these should be so exactly accommo- 
dated to the several parts and uses to which they 
belong and serve : was all this without design ? 
Who that views the curious and apt texture of 
the eye, can think that it was not made on pur- 
pose to see with? and the ear, upon the like 
view, for hearing, when so many things must 
concur that these actions might be performed by 
these organs, and are found to do so ? Or who 
can think that the sundry little engines belong- 
ing to the eye were not made with design to move 
it upward, downward, to this side or that, or 
whirl it about as there should be occasion ; with- 
out which instruments and their appendages, no 
such motion could have been ? Who, that is not 
stupidly perverse, can think that the sundry inward 
parts — which it would require a volume distinctly 
to speak of, and but to mention them and their 
uses would too unproportionably swell this part 
of this discourse — were not made purposely by 
a designing agent, for the ends they so aptly and 
constantly serve for? The want of some one 
among divers whereof, or but a little misplacing, 
or if things had been but a little otherwise than 
they are, had inferred an impossibility that such 
a creature as man could have subsisted or been 
propagated upon the face of the earth. As what 
if there had not been such a receptacle prepared 
as the stomach is, and so formed and placed as 
it is, to receive and digest necessary nutriment ? 
Had not the whole frame of man beside been in 
vain ? Or what if the passage from it downward 
had not been made somewhat a little ascending, 
so as to detain a convenient time what it received, 
but that what was taken in were suddenly trans- 
mitted ? It is evident the whole structure had 
been ruined as soon as made. What — to instance 
in what seems so small a matter — if that little 
cover had been wanting at the entrance of that 
through which we breathe: (the depression 
whereof by the weight of what wo eat or drink, 
shuts it, and prevents meat and drink from going 
down that way:) had not unavoidable suffocation 
ensued? And who can number the instances 
that can be given beside ? Now when thero is a 
concurrence of so many things absolutely neces- 
sary, (concerning Which the common saying is as 
applicable, baore frequently wont to be applied 



to matters of morality, — 'Goodness is from the 
concurrence of all causes, evil from any defect,') 
each so aptly and opportunely serving its own 
proper use, and all one common end, certainly to 
say that so manifold, so regular and stated a 
subserviency to that end, and the end itself, 
were undesigned, and things casually fell out 
thus, is to say we know or care not what. 

"We will only, before we close this considera- 
tion, concerning the mere frame of a human 
body, (which hath been so hastily and super- 
ficially proposed,) offer a supposition which 
is no more strange (excluding the vulgar notion 
by which nothing is strange but what is not 
common) than the thing itself as it actually is ; 
namely, that the whole more external covering 
of the body of a man were made, instead of skin 
and flesh, of some very transparent substance, 
flexible, but clear as very crystal ; through 
which, and the other more inward (and as 
transparent) integuments, or enfoldings, we 
could plainly perceive the situation and order of 
all the internal parts, and how they each of 
them perform their distinct offices : if <we could 
discern the continual motion of the blood, how it 
is conveyed, by its proper conduits, from its first 
source and fountain, partly downward to the 
lower entrails, (if rather it ascend not from 
thence, as at least what afterward becomes blood 
doth,) partly upward, to its admirable elabora- 
tory, the heart ; where it is refined and furnished 
with fresh vital spirits, and so transmitted thence 
by the distinct vessels, prepared for this pur- 
pose : could we perceive the curious contrivance 
of those little doors, by which it is let in and 
out, on this side and on that: the order and 
course of its circulation, its most commodious 
distribution by two social channels or conduit 
pipes, that everywhere accompany one another 
throughout the body : could we discern the 
curious artifice of the brain, its ways of purga- 
tion; and were it possible to pry into the 
secret chambers and receptacles of the less or 
more pure spirits there : perceive their mani- 
fold conveyances, and the rare texture of that 
net, commonly called the tvonderful one : could wo 
behold the veins, arteries, and nerves, all of 
them arising from their proper and distinct 
originals; and their orderly dispersion for the 
most part by pairs, and conjugations, on this 
side and that, from the middle of the back : with 
the curiously wrought branches, which, sup- 
posing these to appear duly diversified, as so 
many more duskish strokes in this transparent 
frame they would be found bo make throughout 
the whole of it: were every smaller fibre thus 
made at once discernible, especially those innu- 
merable threads into Which the spinal marrow 



172 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



is distributed at the bottom of the back; and 
could -we, through, the same medium, perceive 
those numerous little machines made to serve 
unto voluntary motions, (which in the whole 
body are computed, by some, to the number of 
four hundred and thirty, or thereabouts, or so 
many of them as, according to the present sup- 
position, could possibly come in view,) and dis- 
cern their composition, their various and elegant 
figures, round, square, long, triangular, etc., 
and behold them do their offices, and see how 
they ply to and fro, and work in their respective 
places, as any motion is to be performed by 
them : were all these things, I say, thus made 
liable to an easy and distinct view, who would 
not admiringly cry out, Sow fearfully and won- 
derfully am I made ! And sure there is no man 
sober who would not, upon such a sight, pro- 
nounce that man mad, that should suppose such 
a production to have been a mere undesigned 
casualty. At least, if there be any thing in 
the world that may be thought to carry suffi- 
ciently convincing evidences in it of its having 
been made industriously, and on purpose, not by 
chance, would not this composition, thus offered 
to view, be esteemed to do so much more? 
Tea, and if it did only bear upon it characters 
equally evidential of wisdom and design, with 
what doth certainly so, though in the lowest 
degree, it were sufficient to evince our present 
piu-pose. For if one such instance as this 
would bring the matter no higher than to a bare 
equality, that would at least argue a maker of 
man's body, as wise and as properly designing 
as the artificer of any such slighter piece of 
workmanship, that may yet, certainly, be con- 
cluded the effect of skill and design. And then, 
enough might be said, from other instances, to 
manifest him unspeakably superior. And that 
the matter would be brought, at least, to an 
equality upon the supposition now made, there 
can be no doubt, if any one be judge that hath 
not abjured his understanding and his eyes to- 
gether. And what then, if we lay aside that 
supposition, (which only somewhat gratifies 
fancy and imagination,) doth that alter the case? 
Or is there the less of wisdom and contrivance 
expressed in this work of forming man's body, 
only for that it is not so easily and suddenly 
obvious to our sight ? Then we might with the 
same reason say, concerning some curious piece 
of carved work that is thought fit to be kept 
locked up in a cabinet, when we see it, that 
there was admirable workmanship shown in 
doing it ; but as soon as it is again shut up in 
its repository, that there was none at all. In- 
asmuch as we speak of the objective characters 
of wisdom and design that are in the thing 



itself, (though they must some way or other 
come under our notice, otherwise we can be 
capable of arguing nothing from them, yet.) 

i since we have sufficient assurance that there 

i really are such characters in the structure of 

| the body of man as have been mentioned, and a 
thousand more than have been thought neces- 

; sary to be mentioned here, it is plain that the 
greater or less facility of finding them out, so 
that we be at a certainty that they are, (whether 
by the slower or more gradual search of our 
own eyes, or by relying upon the testimony of 
such as have purchased themselves that satisfac- 

t tion by their own labor and diligence,) is merely 
accidental to the thing itself we are discoursing 

, of; and neither adds to nor detracts from the 
rational evidence of the present argument. Or 
if it do either, the more abstruse paths of 
Divine wisdom in this, as in other things, do 
rather recommend it the more to our adoration 
and reverence, than if every thing were obvious, 
and lay open to the first glance of a more care- 
less eye. The things which we are sure (or may 
be, if we do not shut our eyes) the wise Maker 

: of this world hath done, do sufficiently serve to 
assure us that he could have done this also ; 
that is, have made every thing in the frame and 
shape of our bodies conspicuous in the way 
but now supposed, if he had thought it fit. He 
hath done greater things. And since he hath 

' not thought that fit, we may be bold to say, the 
doing of it would signify more trifling, and less 
design. It gives us a more amiable and comely 

1 representation of the Being we are treating 
of, that his works are less for ostentation than 
use ; and that his wisdom and other attributes 
appear in them rather to the instruction of sober, 
than the gratification of vain minds. 

"TVe may therefore confidently conclude, 
that the figuration of the human body carries 
with it as manifest, unquestionable evidences of 
design, as any piece of human artifice that 
most confessedly, in the judgment of any man, 
doth so ; and therefore had as certainly a de- 
signing cause. We may challenge the world to 
show a disparity, unless it be that the advantage 
is inconceivably great on our side. For would 
not any one that hath not abandoned both his 
reason and his modesty, be ashamed to confess 
and admire the skill that is shown in making a 
statue, or the picture of a man, that (as one 
ingeniously says) is but the shadow of his skin, 
and deny the wisdom that appears in the com- 
posure of his body itself, that contains so nume- 
rous and so various engines and instruments 
for sundry purposes in it, as that it is be- 
come an art, and a very laudable one, but to 
discover and find out the art and skill that are 



CH. I.] 

shown in the contrivance and formation of 
them? 

'•And now if any should be so incurably blind 
as not to perceive, or so perversely wilful as 
not to acknowledge, an appearance of wisdom in 
the frame and figuration of the body of an 
animal — peculiarly of man — more than equal to 
what appears in any, the most exquisite piece 
of human artifice, and which no wit of man can 
ever fully imitate ; although, as hath been said, 
an acknowledged equality would suffice to evince 
a wise Maker thereof, yet because it is the ex- 
istence of God we are now speaking of, and 
that it is therefore not enough to evince, but to 
magnify the wisdom we would ascribe to him ; 
we shall pass from the parts and frame to the 
consideration of the more principal powers and 
functions of terrestrial creatures; ascending 
from such as agree to the less perfect order of 
these, to those of the more perfect, namely, 
of man himself. And surely to have been the 
author of faculties that shall enable to such 
functions, will evidence a wisdom that defies our 
imitation, and will dismay the attempts of it. 

" We begin with that of growth. Many sorts 
of rare engines we acknowledge contrived by 
the wit of man, but who hath ever made one 
that could grow, or that had in it a self-im- 
proving power ? A tree, an herb, a pile of grass, 
may upon this account challenge all the world 
to make such a thing; that is, to implant the 
power of growing into any thing to which it doth 
not natively belong, or to make a thing to which 
it doth. 

" By what art would they make a seed ? And 
which way would they inspire it with a seminal 
form ? And they that think this whole globe of 
the earth was compacted by the casual, or 
fatal, coalition of particles of matter, by what 
magic would they conjure up so many to come 
together as to make one clod ? We vainly hunt 
with a lingering mind after miracles : if we did 
not more vainly mean by them nothing else but 
novelties, we are compassed about with such; 
and the greatest miracle is, that we see them 
not. You with whom the daily productions of 
nature, as you call it, are so cheap, see if you 
can do the like. Try your skill upon a rose. 
Yea, but you must have preexistent matter? 
But can you ever provo the Maker of the world 
had so, or even defend the possibility of un- 
created matter ? And suppose they had the free 
grant of all the matter between tho crown of 
thoir head and tho moon, could thoy tell what to 
do with it, or how to manage it, so as to make it 
yield them one singlo flower, that they might 
glory in as their own production ? 

"And wliat mortal man, that hath roason 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY 



173 



enough about him to be serious, and to think 
awhile, would not even be amazed at the miracle 
of nutrition? Or that there are things in the 
world capable of nourishment ? Or who would 
attempt an imitation here, or not despair to per- 
form any thing like it? that is, to make any 
nourishable thing. Are we not here infinitely 
outdone? Do we not see ourselves compassed 
about with wonders, and are we not ourselves 
such, in that we see, and are creatures, from 
all whose parts there is a continual defiuxion, 
and yet that receive a constant gradual supply 
and renovation, by which they are continued in 
the same state? as the bush burning but not 
consumed. It is easy to give an artificial frame 
to a thing that shall gradually decay and waste 
till it be quite gone, and disappear. You could 
raise a structure of snow that would soon do 
that. But can your manual skill compose a 
thing that, like our bodies, shall be continually 
melting away, and be continually repaired, 
through so long a tract of time ? Nay, but can 
you tell how it is done? You know in what 
method, and by what instruments, food is re- 
ceived, concocted, separated, and so much as 
must serve for nourishment turned into chyle, 
and that into blood, first grosser, and then more 
refined, and that distributed into all parts for 
this purpose. Yea, and what then ? Therefore 
are you as wise as your Maker? Could you 
have made such a thing as the stomach, a liver, 
a heart, a vein, an artery ? Or are you so very 
sure what the digestive quality is ? Or if you 
are, and know what things best serve to main- 
tain, to repair, or strengthen it, who implanted 
that quality ? Both where it is so immediately 
useful, or in the other things you would use 
for the service of that ? Or how, if such things 
had not been prepared to your hand, would you 
have devised to persuade the particles of matter 
into so useful and happy a conjuncture, as that 
such a quality might result? Or, to speak 
more suitably to the most, how, if you had not 
been shown the way, would you have thought 
it were to be done, or which way would you 
have gone to work, to turn meat and drink into 
flesh and blood ? 

"And what shall we say of spontaneous motion, 
wherewith we find also creatures endowed that 
are so mean and despicablo in our eyes, (as well 
as ourselves,) that is, that so silly a thing as a 
fly, a gnat, etc., should have a power in it to 
move itself, or stop its own motion, at its own 
pleasuro ? IIow far have all attempted imitations 
in this kind fallen short of this perfection ! And 
how much more excellent a tiling is tho smallest 
and most contemptible inseet, than tho most 
admired machine we ever heard or read of: fas 



174 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



Architas Tarentinus's dove so anciently cele- 
brated, or more lately Kegiomontanus's fly, or 
his eagle, or any the like:) not only as having 
this peculiar power, above any thing of this sort, 
but as having the sundry other powers besides, 
meeting in it, whereof these are wholly destitute ? 

"And should we go on to instance further in 
the several powers of sensation, both external and 
internal, the various instincts, appetitions, pas- 
sions, sympathies, antipathies, the powers of 
memory, (and we might add of speech, ) that we 
find the inferior orders of creatures either gene- 
rally furnished with, or some of them, as to this 
last, disposed unto : how should we even overdo 
the present business ; and too needlessly insult 
over human wit, (which we must suppose to have 
already yielded the cause,) in challenging it to 
produce and offer to view a hearing, seeing 
engine, that can imagine, talk, is capable of 
hunger, thirst, of desire, anger, fear, grief, etc., 
as its own creature, concerning which it may 
glory and say, / have done this ! 

"Is it so admirable a performance, and so un- 
gainsayable an evidence of skill and wisdom, 
with much labor and long travail of mind: a 
busy, restless agitation of working thoughts : the 
often renewal of frustrated attempts : the varying 
of defeated trials, this way and that, at length to 
hit upon, and by much pains, and with a slow, 
gradual progress, by the use of who can tell how 
many sundry sorts of instruments or tools, by long 
hewing, hammering, turning, filing, to compose 
one only single machine of such a frame and 
structure as that, by the frequent reinforcement 
of a skilful hand, it may be capable of some 
(and that otherwise but a very short-lived) 
motion? And is it no argument, or effect of 
wisdom, so easily and certainly, without labor, 
error, or disappointment, to frame both so infinite 
a variety of kinds, and so innumerable individu- 
als of every such kind of living creatures, that 
not only with the greatest facility can move 
themselves with so many sorts of motion, down- 
ward, upward, to and fro, this way or that, with 
a progressive or circular, a swifter or a slower 
motion, at their own pleasure, but can also 
grow, propagate, see, hear, desire, joy, etc. ? Is 
this no work of wisdom, but only either blind 
fate or chance ? Of how strangely perverse and 
odd a complexion is that understanding (if yet 
it may be called an understanding) that can 
make this judgment ! 

"But because whatsoever comes under the 
name of cogitation, properly taken, is assigned 
to some higher cause than mechanism ; and that 
there are operations belonging to man which lay 
claim to a reasonable soul, as the immediate 
principle and author of them, we have yet this 



further step to advance, that is, to consider the 
most apparent evidence we have of a wise, de- 
signing agent, in the powers and nature of this 
more excellent, and, among other things, more 
obvious to our notice, the noblest of his pro- 
ductions. 

"And were it not for the slothful neglect of 
the most to study themselves, we should not have 
need to recount unto men the common and well- 
known abilities and excellences which peculiarly 
belong to their own nature. They might take 
notice, without being told, that first, as to their 
intellectual faculty, they have somewhat about 
them that can think, understand, frame notions 
of things : that can rectify or supply the false or 
defective representations which are made to them 
by their external senses and fancies : that can 
conceive of things far above the reach and sphere 
of sense, the moral good or evil of actions or in- 
clinations, and what there is in them of rectitude 
or pravity: whereby they can animadvert, and 
cast their eye inward upon themselves : observe 
the good or evil acts or inclinations, the know- 
ledge, ignorance, dulness, vigor, tranquillity, 
trouble, and, generally, the perfections or imper- 
fections of their own minds; that can appre- 
hend the general natures of things, the future 
existence of what yet is not, with the future 
appearance of that which, to us, as yet, appears 
not. 

" They may take notice of their power of com- 
paring things : of discerning and making a judg- 
ment of their agreements and disagreements, 
their proportions and dispositions to one another : 
of affirming or denying this or that, concerning 
such or such things ; and of pronouncing, with 
more or less confidence, concerning the truth 
or falsehood of such affirmations or negations. 

"And, moreover, of their power of arguing, and 
inferring one thing from another, so as from one 
plain and evident principle to draw forth a long 
chain of consequences, that may be discerned to 
be linked therewith. 

" They have withal to consider the liberty and 
the large capacity of the human will, which, when 
it is itself, rejects the dominion of any other than 
the supreme Lord's, and refuses satisfaction in 
any other than the supreme and most compre- 
hensive good. 

"And upon even so hasty and transient a view 
of a thing furnished with such powers and facul- 
ties, we have sufficient occasion to bethink our- 
selves, How came such a thing as this into being : 
whence did it spring, or to what original doth it 
owe itself ? More particularly we have here two 
things to be remembered : that, notwithstanding 
so high excellences, the soul of man doth yet 
appear to be a caused being, that some time had 



CH. I.] 



a beginning : that by them it is sufficiently evi- 
dent that it owes itself to a wise and intelligent 
cause." 

The instance of a watch, chosen by Howe for 
the illustration of his argument that evidences 
of design, in any production, are evidences of a 
designing cause, is thus strikingly amplified and 
applied by Paley to refute the leading atheistic 
theories: "The mechanism of the watch being 
once observed and understood, the inference, we 
think, is inevitable, that the watch must have 
had a maker : that there must have existed, at 
some time and at some place or other, an artificer 
or artificers who formed it for the purpose which 
we find it actually to answer : who comprehended 
its construction and designed its use. , 

"Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the con- 
clusion, that we had never seen a watch made : 
that we had never known an artist capable of 
making one : that we were altogether incapable 
of executing such a piece of workmanship our- 
selves, or of understanding in what manner it 
was performed : all this being no more than what 
is true of some exquisite remains of ancient art, 
of some lost arts, and, to the generality of man- 
kind, of the more curious productions of modern 
manufacture. Does one man in a million know 
how oval frames are turned ? Ignorance of this 
kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and un- 
known artist's skill, if he be unseen and unknown, 
but raises no doubt in our minds of the existence 
and agency of such an artist, at some former 
time, and in some place or other. Nor can I per- 
ceive that it varies at all the inference, whether 
the question arise concerning a human agent, or 
concerning an agent of a different species, or an 
agent possessing, in some respects, a different 
nature. 

"Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our 
conclusion, that the watch sometimes went wrong, 
or that it seldom went exactly right. The pur- 
pose of the machinery, the design, and the de- 
signer, might be evident, and in the case sup- 
posed would be evident, in whatever way we 
accounted for the irregularity of the movement, 
or whether we could account for it or not. It is 
not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order 
to show with what design it was made : still less 
necessary, where the only question is, whether it 
were made with any design at all. 

"Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty 
into the argument, if there were a few parts of 
the watch concerning which we could not dis- 
cover, or had not yet discovered in what manner 
they conduced to the general effect; or even 
some parts concerning which wo could not ascer- 
tain whether they conduced to that effect in any 
manner whatever. For, as to the first branch 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



175 



of the case, if, by the loss or disorder or decay 
of the parts in question, the movement of the 
watch were found in fact to be stopped, or dis- 
turbed, or retarded, no doubt would remain in 
our minds as to the utility or intention of these 
parts, although we should be unable to investi- 
gate the manner according to which, or the con- 
nection by which, the ultimate effect depended 
upon their action or assistance; and the more 
complex is the machine, the more likely is this 
obscurity to arise. Then, as to the second thing 
supposed, namely, that there were parts which 
might be spared without prejudice to the move- 
ment of the watch, and that we had proved this 
by experiment, — these superfluous parts, even 
if we were completely assured that they were 
such, would not vacate the reasoning which we 
had instituted concerning other parts. The in- 
dication of contrivance remained, with respect to 
them, nearly as it was before. 

"Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses 
think the existence of the watch, with its various 
machinery, accounted for by being told that it 
was one out of possible combinations of material 
forms : that whatever he had found, in the place 
where he had found the watch, must have con- 
tained some internal configuration or other ; and 
that this configuration might be the structure 
now exhibited, namely, of the works of a watch, 
as well as a different structure. 

"Nor, fifthly, would it yield his inquiry more 
satisfaction to be answered, that there existed in 
things a principle of order, which had disposed 
the parts of the watch into their present form 
and situation. He never knew a watch made by 
the principle of order ; nor can he even form to 
himself an idea of what is meant by a principle 
of order, distinct from the intelligence of the 
watchmaker. 

" Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear that the 
mechanism of the watch was no proof of contri- 
vance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so. 

"And not less surprised to be informed that 
the watch in his hand was nothing more than the 
result of the laws of metallic nature. It is a per- 
version of language to assign any law as the 
efficient, operative cause of any thing. A law 
presupposes an agent ; for it is only the mode 
according to which an agent proceeds : it implies 
a power ; for it is the order according to which 
that power acts. Without this agent, without 
this power, which are both distinct from itself, 
the laiv does nothing — is nothing. The expres- 
sion, 'the law of metallic nature.' may sound 
strange and harsh to a philosophic ear, but it 
seems quite as justifiable as some others whioh 
are more familiar to him, sueh as 'tho law of 
vegetable nature,' 'the law of animal nature,' or 



176 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



indeed as 'the law of nature' in general, when 
assigned as the cause of phenomena, in exclusion 
of agency and power ; or when it is substituted 
into the place of these. 

" Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven 
out of his conclusion, or from his confidence in 
its truth, by being told that he knew nothing at 
all about the matter. He knows enough for his 
argument : he knows the utility of the end : he 
knows the subserviency and adaptation of the 
means to the end. These points being known, 
his ignorance of other points, his doubts con- 
cerning other points, affect not the certainty of 
his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing 
little need not beget a distrust of that which he 
does know. 

"Suppose, in the nest place, that the person 
who found the watch should, after some time, 
discover that, in addition to all the properties 
which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed 
the unexpected property of producing, in the 
course of its movement, another watch, like 
itself; (the thing is conceivable;) that it con- 
tained within it a mechanism, a system of parts. 
a mould, for instance, or a complex adjustment 
of lathes, files, and other tools, evidently and 
separately calculated for this purpose : let us 
inquire what effect ought such a discovery to 
have upon his former conclusion. 

" The first effect would be to increase his 
admiration of the contrivance, and his convic- 
tion of the consummate skill of the contriver. 
"Whether he regarded the object of the contri- 
vance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet 
in many parts intelligible, mechanism by which 
it was carried on, he would perceive in this new 
observation nothing but an additional reason for 
doing what he had already done — for referring 
the construction of the watch to design and to 
supreme art. If that construction without this 
property, or, which is the same thing, before 
this property had been noticed, proved intention 
and art to have been employed about it, still 
more strong would the proof appear when he 
came to the knowledge of this further property, 
the crown and perfection of all the rest. 

"He would reflect that though the watch be- 
fore him were, in some sense, the maker of the 
watch which was fabricated in the course of its 
movements, yet it was in a very different sense 
from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is 
the maker of a chair : the author of its contri- 
vance, the cause of the relation of its parts to 
their use. With respect to these, the first watch 
was no cause at all to the second : in no such 
sense as this was it the author of the constitu- 
tion and order, either of the parts which the 
new watch contained, or of the parts by the aid 



[PART II. 

and instrumentality of which it was produced. 
We might possibly say, but with great latitude 
of expression, that a stream of water ground 
corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow 
us to say, no stretch of conjecture could lead us 
to think, that the stream of water built the mill, 
though it were too ancient for us to know who 
the builder was. What the stream of water does 
in the affair is neither more nor less than this : 
by the application of an unintelligent impulse to 
a mechanism previously arranged, arranged in- 
dependently of it, and arranged by intelligence, 
an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. 
But the effect results from the arrangement. 
The force of the stream cannot be said to be the 
cause or author of the effect, still less of the 
arrangement. Understanding and plan in the 
formation of the mill were not the less necessary, 
for any share which the water has in grinding 
the corn ; yet is this share the same as that which 
the watch would have contributed to the produc- 
tion of the new watch, upon the supposition 
assumed in the last section. Therefore, 

" Though it be now no longer probable that 
the individual watch which our observer had 
found was made immediately by the hand of an 
artificer, yet doth not this alteration in any wise 
affect the inference that an artificer had been 
originally employed and concerned in the pro- 
duction. The argument from design remains as 
it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no 
more accounted for now than they were before. 
In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of 
different properties. We may ask for the cause 
of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its 
heat ; and these causes may be all different. We 
are now asking for the cause of that subser- 
viency to a use, that relation to an end, which we 
have marked in the watch before us. No answer 
is given to this question by telling us that a pre- 
ceding watch produced it. There cannot be de- 
sign without a designer ; contrivance without a 
contriver ; order without choice ; arrangement 
without any thing capable of arranging; sub- 
serviency and relation to a purpose without that 
which could intend a purpose ; means suitable to 
an end, and executing their office in accomplish- 
ing that end, without the end ever having been 
contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. 
Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency 
of means to an end, relation of instruments to a 
use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. 
No one, therefore, can rationally believe that 
the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the 
watch before us issued, was the proper cause of 
the mechanism we so much admire in it, — could 
be truly said to have constructed the instrument, 
disposed its parts, assigned their office, deter- 



CH. I.] 

mined their order, action, and mutual depend- 
ency, combined their several motions into one 
result, and that also a result connected with the 
utilities of other beings. All these properties, 
therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they 
were before. 

" Nor is any thing gained by running the diffi- 
culty farther back, that is, by supposing the 
watch before us to have been produced from 
another watch, that from a former, and so on in- 
definitely. Our going back ever so far brings us 
no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon 
the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted 
for. We still want a contriver. A designing 
mind is neither supplied by this supposition, nor 
dispensed with. If the difficulty were dimin- 
ished the farther we went back, by going back 
indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is 
the only case to which this sort of reasoning 
applies. Where there is a tendency, or, as we 
increase the number of terms, a continual ap- 
proach toward a limit, there, by supposing the 
number of terms to be what is called infinite, we 
may conceive the limit to be attained; but where 
there is no such tendency or approach, nothing 
is effected by lengthening the series. There is 
no difference as to the point in question, (what- 
ever there may be as to many points,) between 
one series and another : between a series which 
is finite and a series which is infinite. A chain 
composed of an infinite number of links, can no 
more support itself, than a chain composed of a 
finite number of links. And of this we are 
assured, (though we never can have tried the 
experiment,) because, by increasing the number 
of links, from ten, for instance, to a hundred, 
from a hundred to a thousand, etc., we make 
not the smallest approach, we observe not the 
smallest tendency toward self-support. There is 
no difference in this respect — yet there may be a 
great difference in several respects — between a 
chain of a greater or less length, between one 
chain and another, between one that is finite and 
one that is infinite. This very much resembles 
the case before us. The machine which we are 
inspecting demonstrates, by its construction, 
contrivance and design. Contrivance must have 
had a contriver ; design a designer, whether the 
machine immediately proceeded from another 
machine or not. That circumstance alters not 
the case. That other machine may, in like 
manner, have proceeded from a former machine ; 
nor docs that alter the case — contrivance must 
have had a contriver. That former one from one 
preceding it — no alteration still — a contriver is 
still necessary. No tendency is percoived, no 
approach toward a diminution of this necessity. 
It is the same with any and every succession of 
12 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



177 



these machines: a succession of ten, of a hun- 
dred, of a thousand: with one series as with 
another : a series which is finite as with a series 
which is infinite. In whatever other respects they 
may differ, in this they do not. In all equally, 
contrivance and design are unaccounted for. 

"The question is not simply, How came the 
first watch into existence? which question, it 
may be pretended, is done away by supposing 
the series of watches thus produced from one 
another to have been infinite, and consequently 
to have had no such first, for which it was neces- 
sary to provide a cause. This perhaps would 
have been nearly the state of the question, if 
nothing had been before us but an unorganized, 
unmechanized substance, without mark or indi- 
cation of contrivance. It might be difficult to 
show that such substance could not have existed 
from eternity, either in succession — if it were 
possible, which I think it is not, for unorganized 
bodies to spring from one another — or by indi- 
vidual perpetuity. But that is not the question 
now. To suppose it to be so, is to suppose that 
it made no difference whether we had found a 
watch or a stone. As it is, the metaphysics of 
that question have no place ; for in the watch 
which we are examining are seen contrivance, 
design ; an end, a purpose ; means for the end, 
adaptation to the purpose. And the question, 
which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts, is, 
Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing 
required is the intending mind, the adapting 
hand, the intelligence by which that hand was 
directed. This question, this demand, is not 
shaken off by increasing a number or succession 
of substances, destitute of these properties ; nor 
the more by increasing that number to infinity. 
If it be said, that upon the supposition of one 
watch being produced from another in the course 
of that other's movements, and by means of the 
mechanism within it, we have a cause for the 
watch in my hand, viz., the watch from which it 
proceeded, I deny, that for the design, the con- 
trivance, the suitableness of means to an end. 
the adaptation of instruments to a use — all which 
we discover in the watch — we have any cause 
whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a 
series of such causes, or to allege that a series 
may be carried back to infinity ; for I do not 
admit that we have yet any cause at all of the 
phenomena, still less any series of causes cither 
finite or infinite. Hero is contrivance, but no 
contriver ; proofs of design, but no designer. 

"Our observer would further also reflect that 
the maker of the wateli before bim was, in truth 
and reality, the maker of every watch produced 
from it: there being no ditl'erenee, except that 
the latter manifests a more exquisite skill, bo- 



178 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



tween the making of another watch with his own 
hands, by the mediation of files, lathes, chisels, 
etc., and the disposing, fixing, and inserting of 
these instruments, or of others equivalent to 
them, in the body of the watch already made, in 
such a manner as to form a new watch in the 
course of the movements which he had given to 
the old one. It is only working by one set of 
tools instead of another. 

"The conclusion which the first examination 
of the watch, of its works, construction and 
movement, suggested, was, that it must have 
had, for the cause and author of that construc- 
tion, an artificer, who understood its mechanism, 
and designed its use. This conclusion is invin- 
cible. A second examination presents us with a 
new discovery. The watch is found, in the course 
of its movement, to produce another watch, 
similar to itself ; and not only so, but we per- 
ceive in it a system of organization, separately 
calculated for that purpose. What effect would 
this discovery have, or ought it to have, upon 
our former inference? What, as hath already 
been said, but to increase, beyond measure, our 
admiration of the skill which had been employed 
in the formation of such a machine ? Or shall 
it, instead of this, all at once turn us round to 
an opposite conclusion, viz., that no art or skill 
whatever has been concerned in the business, 
although all other evidences of art and skill 
remain as they were, and this last and supreme 
piece of art be now added to the rest ? Can this 
be maintained without absurdity ? Yet this is 
Atheism." 

If the argument is so powerful when a work 
of art merely is made its basis, it is rendered 
much more convincing when it is transferred to 
the works of nature ; because ends more singular 
are, in an infinite number of instances, there 
proposed, and are accomplished by contrivances 
much more curious and difficult. In the quota- 
tion above given from Howe, the eye, the parts 
of the body which are double, and the construc- 
tion of the spine, are adduced among others as 
striking instances of a contrivance superior to 
the art of man, and as evidently denoting fore- 
thought and plan, the attributes not of intelligence 
only, but of an intelligence of an infinitely 
superior order. These instances have been 
admirably wrought up by the master-hand which 
furnished the last quotation. 

We begin with the human eye. 

"The contrivances of nature surpass the con- 
trivances of art in the complexity, subtilty, and 
curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if 
possible, do they go beyond them in number and 
variety ; yet in a multitude of cases are not less 
evidently mechanical, not less evidently contri- 



vances, not less evidently accommodated to their 
end, or suited to their office, than are the most 
perfect productions of human ingenuity. 

"I know no better method of introducing so 
large a subject than that of comparing a single 
thing with a single thing : an eye, for example, 
with a telescope. As far as the examination of 
the instrument goes, there is precisely the same 
proof that the eye was made for vision, as there 
is that the telescope was made for assisting it. 
They are made upon the same principles — both 
being adjusted to the laws by which the trans- 
mission and refraction of rays of light are regu- 
lated. I speak not of the origin of the laws 
themselves ; but such laws being fixed, the con- 
struction, in both cases, is adapted to them. 
For instance : these laws require, in order to 
produce the same effect, that the rays of light, 
in passing from water into the eye, should be 
refracted by a more convex surface than when 
they pass out of air into the eye. Accordingly we 
find that the eye of a fish, in that part of it 
called the crystalline lens, is much rounder than 
the eye of terrestrial animals. What plainer 
manifestation of design can there be than this 
difference ? What could a mathematical instru- 
ment-maker have done more to show his know- 
ledge of his principle, his application of that 
knowledge, his suiting of his means to his end ; 
I will not say, to display the compass or excel- 
lency of his skill and art, for in these all com- 
parison is indecorous, but to testify counsel, 
choice, consideration, purpose? 

11 To some it may appear a difference sufficient 
to destroy all similitude between the eye and the 
telescope, that the one is a perceiving organ, the 
other an unperceiving instrument. The fact is, 
that they are both instruments. And as to the 
mechanism, at least as to mechanism being em- 
ployed, and even as to the kind of it, this 
circumstance varies not the analogy at all ; for 
observe what the constitution of the eye is. It 
is necessary, in order to produce distinct vision, 
that an image or picture of the object be formed 
at the bottom of the eye. Whence this necessity 
arises, or how the picture is connected with the 
sensation, or contributes to it, it may be difficult, 
nay, we will confess, if you please, impossible 
for us to search out. But the present question 
is not concerned in the inquiry. It may be true 
that in this, and in other instances, we trace me- 
chanical contrivance a certain way; and that then 
we come to something which is not mechanical, 
or which is inscrutable. But this affects not the 
certainty of our investigation as far as we have 
gone. The difference between an animal and an 
automatic statue consists in this: that in the 
animal we trace the mechanism to a certain 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



179 



point, and then we are stopped; either the 
mechanism becoming too subtile for our discern- 
ment, or something else beside the known laws 
of mechanism taking place : whereas, in the 
automaton, for the comparatively few motions of 
which it is capable, we trace the mechanism 
throughout. But, up to the limit, the reasoning 
is as clear and certain in the one case as the 
other. In the example before us, it is a matter 
of certainty, because it is a matter which experi- 
ence and observation demonstrate, that the 
formation of an image at the bottom of the eye 
is necessary to perfect vision. The image itself 
can be shown. Whatever affects the distinctness 
of the image, affects the distinctness of the 
vision. The formation, then, of such an image 
being necessary (no matter how) to the sense of 
sight, and to the exercise of that sense, the 
apparatus by which it is formed is constructed 
and put together not only with infinitely more 
art, but upon the self-same principles of art as in 
the telescope or camera obscura. The percep- 
tion arising from the image may be laid out of 
the question : for the production of the image, 
these are instruments of the same kind. The 
end is the same : the means are the same. The 
purpose in both is alike: the contrivance for 
accomplishing that purpose is in both alike. 
The lenses of the telescope, and the humors of 
the eye, bear a complete resemblance to one 
another in their figure, their position, and in 
their power over the rays of light, viz., in bring- 
ing each pencil to a point at the right distance 
from the lens ; namely, in the eye, at the exact 
place where the membrane is spread to receive 
it. How is it possible, under circumstances of 
such close affinity, and under the operation of 
an equal evidence, to exclude contrivance from 
the one, yet to acknowledge the proof of con- 
trivance having been employed, as the plainest 
and clearest of all propositions, in the other ? 

" The resemblance between the two cases is 
still more accurate, and obtains in more points 
than we have yet represented, or than we are, on 
the first view of the subject, aware of. In 
dioptric telescopes there is an imperfection of 
this nature. Pencils of light, in passing through 
glass lenses, are separated into different colors, 
thereby tinging the object, especially the edges 
of it, as if it were viewed through a prism. To 
correct this inconvenience had been long a 
desideratum in the art. At last it came into the 
mind of a sagacious optician to inquire how this 
matter was managed in the eye, in which there 
was exactly the same difficulty to contend with 
as in the telescope. His observation taught him 
that, in the cyo, the evil was cured by combin- 
ing together lenses composed of different sub- 



stances, i. e., of substances which possessed differ- 
ent refracting powers. Our artist borrowed 
from thence his hint ; and produced a correction 
of the defect by imitating, in glasses made from 
different materials, the effects of the different 
humors through which the rays of light pass 
before they reach the bottom of the eye. Could 
this be in the eye without purpose, which 
suggested to the optician the only effectual 
means of attaining that purpose ? 

"But further: there are other points, not so 
much, perhaps, of strict resemblance between 
the two, as of superiority of the eye over the 
telescope, yet of a superiority which, being 
founded in the laws that regulate both, may 
furnish topics of fair and just comparison. Two 
things were wanted to the eye, which were not 
wanted, at least in the same degree, to the tele- 
scope ; and these were, the adaptation of the 
organ, first, to different degrees of light; and 
secondly, to the vast diversity of distance at 
which objects are viewed by the naked eye, viz., 
from a few inches to as many miles. These diffi- 
culties present not themselves to the maker of 
the telescope. He wants all the light he can 
get; and he never directs his instrument to 
objects near at hand. In the eye, both these 
cases were to be provided for; and for the 
purpose of providing for them, a subtile and 
appropriate mechanism is introduced. 

" In order to exclude excess of light when it 
is excessive, and to render objects visible under 
obscurer degrees of it when no more can be 
had, the hole or aperture in the eye through 
which the light enters is so formed as to contract 
or dilate itself for the purpose of admitting a 
greater or less number of rays at the same time. 
The chamber of the eye is a camera obscura, 
which, when the light is too small, can enlarge 
its opening : when too strong, can again contract 
it, and that without any other assistance than 
that of its own exquisite machinery. It is 
further, also, in the human subject, to be observed 
that this hole in the eye, which we call the pupil, 
under all its different dimensions, retains its 
exact circular shape. This is a structure ex- 
tremely artificial. Let an artist only try to 
execute the same. He will find that his threads 
and strings must be disposed with great consider- 
ation and contrivance to make a circle which 
shall continually change its diameter, yet pre- 
serve its form. This is clone in the eye by an 
application of fibres, i. e., of strings, similar in 
their position and action to what an artist would 
and must employ, if ho had the same piece of 
workmanship to perform. 

"The second difficulty which has been Stated, 
was the suiting of tho same organ to tho pcrcep- 



180 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



tion of objects that lie near at hand, within a 
few inches, we will suppose, of the eye, and of 
objects which were placed at a considerable dis- 
tance from it, that, for example, of as many 
furlongs : (I speak in both cases of the distance 
at which distinct vision can be exercised.) Now 
this, according to the principles of optics, that 
is, according to the laws by which the transmis- 
sion of light is regulated, (and these laws are 
fixed,) could not be done without the organ itself 
undergoing an alteration, and receiving an adjust- 
ment that might correspond with the exigency 
of the case, that is to say, with the different 
inclination to one another under which the rays 
of light reached it. Rays issuing from points 
placed at a small distance from the eye, and 
which, consequently, must enter the eye in a 
spreading or diverging order, cannot, by the 
same optical instrument in the same state, be 
brought to a point, i. e., be made to form an image 
in the same place with rays proceeding from 
objects sitoiated at a much greater distance, and 
which rays arrive at the eye in directions nearly, 
and, physically speaking, parallel. It requires 
a rounder lens to do it. The point of concourse 
behind the lens must fall critically upon the 
retina, or the vision is confused; yet, other 
things remaining the same, this point, by the 
immutable properties of light, is carried farther 
back, when the rays proceed from a near object, 
than when they are sent from one that is remote. 
A person who was using an optical instrument 
would manage this matter by changing, as the 
occasion required, his lens or his telescope ; or, 
by adjusting the distances of his glasses with his 
hand or his screw ; but how is it to be managed 
in the eye ? What the alteration was, or in what 
pai*t of the eye it took place, or by what means 
it was effected, (for, if the known laws which 
govern the refraction of light be maintained, 
some alteration in the state of the organ there 
must be,) had long formed a subject of inquiry 
and conjecture. The change, though sufficient 
for the purpose, is so minute as to elude ordinary 
observation. Some very late discoveries, de- 
duced from a laborious and most accurate inspec- 
tion of the structure and operation of the organ, 
seem at length to have ascertained the mechani- 
cal alteration which the parts of the eye undergo. 
It is found that by the action of certain muscles, 
called the straight muscles, and which action is 
the most advantageous that could be imagined 
for the purpose — it is found, I say, that when- 
ever the eye is directed to a near object, three 
changes are produced in it at the same time, all 
severally contributing to the adjustment required. 
The cornea, or outermost coat of the eye, is 
rendered more round and prominent : the crystal- 



[PART II. 

line lens underneath is pushed forward ; and the 
axis of vision, as the depth of the eye is called, 
is elongated. These changes in the eye vary its 
power over the rays of light in such a manner 
and degree as to produce exactly the effect which 
is wanted, namely, the formation of an image 
upon the retina, whether the rays come to the eye 
in a state of divergency, which is the case when 
the object is near to the eye, or come parallel to 
one another, which is the case when the object 
is placed at a distance. Can any thing be more 
decisive of contrivance than this is ? The most 
secret laws of optics must have been known to 
the author of a structure endowed with such a 
capacity of change. It is as though an optician, 
when he had a nearer object to view, should 
rectify his instrument by putting in another glass, 
at the same time drawing out also his tube to a 
different length. 

"In considering vision as achieved by the 
means of an image formed at the bottom of the 
eye, we can never reflect without wonder upon 
the smallness, yet correctness, of the picture, 
the subtilty of the touch, the fineness of the 
lines. A landscape of five or six square leagues 
is brought into a space of half an inch diameter ; 
yet the multitude of objects which it contains 
are all preserved — are all discriminated in their 
magnitudes, positions, figures, colors. The 
prospect from Hampstead hill is compressed 
into the compass of a sixpence, yet circum- 
stantially represented. A stage-coach travelling 
at its ordinary speed for half an hour, passes 
in the eye only over one twelfth of an inch, yet 
is this change of place in the image distinctly 
perceived throughout its whole progress ; for it 
is only by means of that perception that the 
motion of the coach itself is made sensible 
to the eye. If any thing can abate our admira- 
tion of the smallness of the visual tablet com- 
pared with the extent of vision, it is a reflec- 
tion which the view of nature leads us, every 
hour, to make, namely, that, in the hands of the 
Creator, great and little are nothing." 

On the parts of the body which are double, 
adduced by Howe as proofs of contrivance, our 
author further remarks : — 

"The human, or indeed the animal frame, 
considered as a mass or assemblage, exhibits 
in its composition three properties, which have 
long struck my mind as indubitable evidences, 
not only of design, but of a great deal of atten- 
tion and accuracy in prosecuting the design. 

"The first is, the exact correspondency of 
the two sides of the same animal: the right 
hand answering to the left, leg to leg, eye to 
eye, one side of the countenance to the other; 
and with a precision, to imitate which, in any 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



181 



tolerable degree, forms one of the difficulties of 
statuary, and requires, on the part of the artist, 
a constant attention to this property of his work, 
distinct from every other. 

"It is the most difficult thing that can he, 
to get a wig made even ; yet how seldom is the 
face awry! And what care is taken that it 
should not be so, the anatomy of its bones de- 
monstrates. The upper part of the face is 
composed of thirteen bones, six on each side, 
answering each to each, and the thirteenth 
without a fellow, in the middle : the lower part 
of the face is in like manner composed of six 
bones, three on each side, respectively corre- 
sponding, and the lower jaw in the centre. In 
building an arch, could more be done in order 
to make the curve true, i. e., the parts equi- 
distant from the middle, alike in figure and 
position ? 

" The exact resemblance of the eyes, con- 
sidering how compounded this organ is in its 
structure, how various and how delicate are the 
shades of color with which its iris is tinged, 
how differently, as to effect upon appearance, 
the eye may be mounted in its socket, and how 
differently in different heads eyes actually are 
set, is a property of animal bodies much to be 
admired. Of ten thousand eyes, I don't know 
that it would be possible to match one, except 
with its own fellow ; or to distribute them into 
suitable pairs by any other selection than that 
which obtains. 

" The next circumstance to be remarked is, 
that while the cavities of the body are so con- 
figurated, as, externally, to exhibit the most 
exact correspondency of the opposite sides, the 
contents of these cavities have no such corre- 
spondency. A line drawn clown the middle of 
the breast divides the thorax into two sides ex- 
actly similar ; yet these two sides enclose very 
different contents. The heart lies on the left 
side ; a lobe of the lungs on the right ; balancing 
each other neither in size nor shape. The same 
thing holds of the abdomen. The liver lies on 
the right side, without any similar viscus op- 
posed to it on the left. The spleen indeed is 
situated over against the liver; but agreeing 
with the liver neither in bulk nor form. There 
is no equipollency between these. The stomach 
is a vessel, both irregular in its shape, and 
oblique in its position. The foldings and doub- 
lings of the intestines do not present a parity of 
sides. Yet that symmetry which depends upon 
the correlation of the sides, is externally pre- 
served throughout the whole trunk; and is the 
more remarkable in the lower parts of it, as the 
Integuments are soft; and the shape, conse- 
quently, is not, as the t Inn-ax is by its ribs, re- 



duced by natural stays. It is evident, therefore, 
that the external proportion does not arise from 
any equality in the shape or pressure of the 
internal contents. What is it indeed but a cor- 
rection of inequalities? an adjustment, by mutual 
compensation, of anomalous forms into a regular 
congeries ? the effect, in a word, of artful, and, 
if we might be permitted so to speak, of studied 
collocation ? 

" Similar also to this is the third observation : 
that an internal inequality in the feeding 
vessels is so managed, as to produce no in- 
equality in parts which were intended to corre- 
spond. The right arm answers accurately to 
the left, both in size and shape ; but the arterial 
branches, which supply the two arms, do not 
go off from their trunk, in a pair, in the same 
manner, at the same place, or at the same 
angle. Under which want of similitude, it is 
very difficult to conceive how the same quantity 
of blood should be pushed through each artery ; 
yet the result is right : the two limbs which are 
nourished by them perceive no difference of 
supply, no effects of excess or deficiency. 

" Concerning the difference of manner in 
which the subclavian and carotid arteries, upon 
the different sides of the body, separate them- 
selves from the aorta, Cheselden seems to have 
thought, that the advantage which the left gain 
by going off at a much acuter angle than the 
right, is made up to the right by their going 
off together in one branch. It is very pos- 
sible that this may be the compensating con- 
trivance ; and if it be so, how curious, how 
hydrostatical!" 

The construction of the spine, another of 
Howe's illustrations, is thus exemplified: — 

"The spine, or back-bone, is a chain of joints 
of very wonderful construction. Various, diffi- 
cult, and almost inconsistent offices were to be 
executed by the same instrument. It was to 
be firm, yet flexible : now I know of no chain 
made by art which is both these ; for by firm- 
ness I mean, not only strength, but stability : 
firm, to support the erect position of the body ; 
flexible, to allow of the bending of the trunk in 
all degrees of curvature. It was further also — 
which is another, and quite a distinct purpose 
from the rest — to become a pipe or conduit for 
the safe conveyance from the brain of the most 
important fluid of the animal frame, that, namely, 
upon which all voluntary motion depends, tho 
spinal marrow; a substance, not only o( the 
first necessity to action, if not to life, but of a 
nature so delicate and tender, so susceptible, and 
so impatient of injury, as that any unusual pres- 
sure upon it, or any considerable obstruction 
of its course, is followed by paralysis or death. 



182 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



Now, the spine was not only to furnish the main 
trunk for the passage of the medullary substance 
from the brain, but to give out, in the course 
of its progress, small pipes therefrom, which 
being afterward indefinitely subdivided, might, 
under the name of nerves, distribute this ex- 
quisite supply to every part of the body. The 
same spine was also to serve another use not 
less wanted than the preceding, namely, to 
afford a fulcrum, stay, or basis, (or, more pro- 
perly speaking, a series of these,) for the inser- 
tion of the muscles which are spread over the 
trunk of the body; in which trunk there are 
not, as in the limbs, cylindrical bones, to which 
they can be fastened ; and, likewise, which is a 
similar use, to furnish a support for the ends of 
the ribs to rest upon. 

"Bespeak of a workman a piece of mecha- 
nism which shall comprise all these purposes, 
and let him set about to contrive it : let him try 
his skill upon it: let him feel the difficulty of 
accomplishing the task, before he be told how 
the same thing is effected in the animal frame. 
Nothing will enable him to judge so well of the 
wisdom which has been employed ; nothing will 
dispose him to think of it so truly. First, for 
the firmness, yet flexibility of the spine, it is 
composed of a great number of bones (in the 
human subject of twenty-four) joined to one 
another, and compacted together by broad bases. 
The breadth of the bases upon which the parts 
severally rest, and the closeness of the junction, 
give to the chain its firmness and stability ; the 
number of parts, and consequent frequency 
of joints, its flexibility. Which flexibility, we 
may also observe, varies in different parts of the 
chain : is least in the back, where strength more 
than flexure is wanted ; greater in the loins, 
which it was necessary should be more supple 
than the back; and the greatest of all in the 
neck, for the free motion of the head. Then, 
secondly, in order to afford a passage for the 
descent of the medullary substance, each of 
these bones is bored through in the middle in 
such a manner, as that, when put together, the 
hole in one bone falls into a line, and corresponds 
with the holes in the two bones contiguous to it. 
By which means, the perforated pieces, when 
joined, form an entire, close, uninterrupted 
channel; at least, while the spine is upright 
and at rest. But, as a settled posture is incon- 
sistent with its use, a great difficulty still re- 
mained, which was to prevent the vertebrae 
shifting upon one another, so as to break the 
line of the canal as often as the body moves or 
twists; or the joints gaping externally, when- 
ever the body is bent forward, and the spine 
thereupon made to take the form of a bow. 



These dangers, which are mechanical, are me- 
chanically provided against. The vertebrae, by 
means of their processes and projections, and of 
the articulations which some of these form with 
one another at their extremities, are so locked 
in and confined as to maintain in what are 
called the bodies, or broad surfaces of the 
bones, the relative position nearly unaltered; 
and to throw the change and the pressure pro- 
duced by flexion, almost entirely upon the inter- 
vening cartilages, the springiness and yielding 
nature of whose substance admits of all the 
motion which is necessary to be performed upon 
them, without any chasm being produced by a 
separation of the parts. I say of all the motion 
which is necessary ; for although we bend our 
backs to every degree almost of inclination, the 
motion of each vertebra is very small ; such is 
the advantage which we receive from the chain 
being composed of so many links, the spine of 
so many bones. Had it consisted of three or 
four bones only, in bending the body the spinal 
marrow must have been bruised at every angle. 
The reader need not be told that these inter- 
vening cartilages are gristles ; and he may see 
them in perfection in a loin of veal. Their 
form also favors the same intention. They are 
thicker before than behind; so that, when we 
stoop forward, the compressible substance of 
the cartilage, yielding in its thicker and anterior 
part to the force which squeezes it, brings the 
surfaces of the adjoining vertebrae nearer to the 
being parallel with one another than they were 
before, instead of increasing the inclination of 
their planes, which must have occasioned a 
fissure, or opening between them. Thirdly, for 
the medullary canal giving out in its course, and 
in a convenient order, a supply of nerves to 
different parts of the body, notches are made in 
the upper and lower edge of every vertebra; 
two on each edge ; equidistant on each side from 
the middle line of the back. When the verte- 
brae are put together, these notches, exactly 
fitting, form small holes, through which the 
nerves, at each articulation, issue out in pairs, 
in order to send their branches to every part of 
the body, and with an equal bounty to both sides 
of the body. The fourth purpose assigned to 
the same instrument, is the insertion of the 
bases of the muscles, and the support of the 
ends of the ribs ; and for this fourth purpose, 
especially the former part of it, a figure, speci- 
fically suited to the design, and unnecessary for 
the other purposes, is given to the constituent 
bones. While they are plain, and round, and 
smooth, toward the front, where any roughness 
or projection might have wounded the adjacent 
viscera, they run out, behind, and on each side, 



CII. I.] 

into long processes, to which processes the 
muscles necessary to the motions of the trunk 
are fixed ; and fixed with such art, that while 
the vertebrae supply a basis for the muscles, the 
muscles help to keep these bones in their posi- 
tion, or by their tendons to tie them together. 

"That most important, however, and general 
property, viz., the strength of the compages, and 
the security against luxation, was to be still more 
specially consulted; for where so many joints 
were concerned, and where, in every one, de- 
rangement would have been fatal, it became a 
subject of studious precaution. For this pur- 
pose, the vertebrae are articulated, that is, the 
movable joints between them are formed by 
means of those projections of their substance, 
which we have mentioned under the name of 
processes ; and these so lock in with and over- 
wrap one another, as to secure the body of the 
vertebra, not only from accidentally slipping, but 
even from being pushed out of its place by any 
violence short of that which would break the 
bone." 

Instances of design and wonderful contrivance 
are as numerous as there are organized bodies in 
nature, and as there are relations between bodies 
which are not organized. The subject is, there- 
fore, inexhaustible. The cases stated are suffi- 
cient for the illustration of this species of argu- 
ment for the existence of an intelligent First 
Cause. Many others are given with great force 
and interest in the Natural Theology of Paley, 
from which the above quotations have been made ; 
but his chapter on the Personality of the Deity 
contains applications of the argument from de- 
sign too important to be overlooked. The same 
course of reasoning may be traced in many other 
writers, but by none has it been expressed with 
so much clearness and felicity. 

"Contrivance, if established, appears to me to 
prove every thing which we wish to prove. Among 
other things, it proves the personality of the Deity, 
as distinguished from what is sometimes called 
nature, sometimes called a principle ; which 
terms, in the mouths of those who use them 
philosophically, seem to be intended to admit 
and to express an efficacy, but to exclude and to 
deny a personal agent. Now that which can con- 
trive, which can design, must be a person. 
These capacities constitute personality, for they 
imply consciousness and thought. They require 
that which can perceive an end or purpose ; as 
well as the power of providing means, and of 
directing them to their end. They require a 
centre in which perceptions unite, and from which 
volitions flow: which is mind. The acts of a 
mind prove the existence of a mind ; and in what- 
ever a mind resides, is a person. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



183 



"Of this we are certain, that, whatever the 
Deity be, neither the universe, nor any part of it 
which we see, can be he. The universe itself is 
merely a collective name : its parts are all which 
are real, or which are things. Now inert matter 
is out of the question ; and organized substances 
include marks of contrivance. But whatever 
includes marks of contrivance, whatever, in its 
constitution, testifies design, necessarily carries 
us to something beyond itself, to some other 
being, to a designer prior to and out of itself. 
No animal, for instance, can have contrived its 
own limbs and senses : can have been the author 
to itself of the design with which they were con- 
structed. That supposition involves all the ab- 
surdity of self-creation, i. e., of acting without 
existing. Nothing can be God which is ordered 
by a wisdom and a will which itself is void of: 
which is indebted for any of its properties to 
contrivance ah extra. The not having that in his 
nature which requires the exertion of another 
prior being, (which property is sometimes called 
self-sufficiency, and sometimes self-comprehen- 
sion,) appertains to the Deity, as his essential 
distinction, and removes his nature from that of 
all things which we see. Which consideration 
contains the answer to a question that has some- 
times been asked, namely, Why, since something 
or other must have existed from eternity, may not 
the present universe be that something? The 
contrivance perceived in it proves that to be im- 
possible. Nothing contrived can, in a strict and 
proper sense, be eternal, forasmuch as the con- 
triver must have existed before the contrivance. 

"We have already noticed, and we must here 
notice again, the misapplication of the term 'law,' 
and the mistake concerning the idea which that 
term expresses in physics, whenever such idea is 
made to take the place of power, and still more 
of an intelligent power, and, as such, to be 
assigned for the cause of any thing, or of any 
property of any thing that exists. This is what 
we are secretly apt to do when we speak of 
organized bodies (plants, for instance, or ani- 
mals) owing their production, their form, their 
growth, their qualities, their beauty, their use, 
to any law or laws of nature ; and when we are 
contented to sit down with that answer to our in- 
quiries concerning them. I say once more, that 
it is a perversion of language to assign any law 
as the efficient operative cause of any thing. A 
law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode 
according to which an agent proceeds : it implies 
a power, for it is the order acoording to which 
that power acts. Without this agent) without 
this power, which are both distinct from itself. 
the 'law' does nothing — is nothing. 

"What has boon said concerning 'law,' holds 



184 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



true of mechanism. Mechanism is not itself 
power. Mechanism without power can do no- 
thing. Let a watch be contrived and constructed 
ever so ingeniously : be its parts ever so many, 
ever so complicated, ever so finely wrought, or 
artificially put together, it cannot go without a 
weight or spring, i. e., without a force independ- 
ent of and ulterior to its mechanism. The spring, 
acting at the centre, will produce different mo- 
tions and different results, according to the 
variety of the intermediate mechanism. One and 
the self-same spring, acting in one and the same 
manner, viz., by simply expanding itself, may be 
the cause of a hundred different, and all useful 
movements, if a hundred different and well-de- 
vised sets of wheels be placed between it and the 
final effect — e. g. , may point out the hour of the 
day, the day of the month, the age of the moon, 
the position of the planets, the cycle of the years, 
and many other serviceable notices : and these 
movements may fulfil their purposes with more 
or less perfection, according as the mechanism is 
better or worse contrived, or better or worse 
executed, or in a better or worse state of repair ; 
but in all cases, it is necessary that the spring act at 
the centre. The course of our reasoning upon 
such a subject would be this: By inspecting the 
wateh, even when standing still, we get a proof 
of contrivance, and of a contriving mind having 
been employed about it. In the form and obvious 
relation of its parts, we see enough to convince 
us of this. If we pull the works in pieces, for 
the purpose of a closer examination, we are still 
more fully convinced. But when we see the 
watch going, we see proof of another point, viz., 
that there is a power somewhere and somehow 
or other applied to it : a power in action : that 
there is more in the subject than the mere wheels 
of the machine : that there is a secret spring, or 
a gravitating plummet : in a word, that there is 
force and energy, as well as mechanism. 

"So, then, the watch in motion establishes to 
the observer two conclusions : one, that thought, 
contrivance, and design have been employed in 
the forming, proportioning, and arranging of its 
parts ; and that whoever or wherever he be, or 
were, such a contriver there is, or was : the other, 
that force or power, distinct from mechanism, is, 
at this present time, acting upon it. If I saw a 
hand-mill even at rest, I should see contrivance ; 
but if I saw it grinding, I should be assured that 
a hand was at the windlass, though in another 
room. It is the same in nature. In the works 
of nature we trace mechanism ; and this alone 
proves contrivance ; but living, active, moving, 
productive nature, proves also the exertion of a 
power at the centre ; for wherever the power 
resides, may be denominated the centre. 



"The intervention and disposition of what are 
called ' second causes' fall under the same observa- 
tion. This disposition is or is not mechanism, 
according as we can or cannot trace it by our 
senses, and means of examination. That is all 
the difference there is; and it is a difference 
! which respects our faculties, not the things 
] themselves. Now, where the order of second 
causes is mechanical, what is here said of 
mechanism strictly applies to it. But it would 
be always mechanism (natural chemistry, for in- 
stance, would be mechanism) if our senses were 
acute enough to descry it. Neither mechanism, 
therefore, in the works of nature, nor the inter- 
vention of what are called second causes, (for I 
think that they are the same thing,) excuses the 
necessity of an agent distinct from both. 

"If, in tracing these causes, it be said, that 
we find certain general properties of matter, 
which have nothing in them that bespeaks intelli- 
gence, I answer that, still, the managing of these 
properties, the pointing and directing them to 
the uses which we see made of them, demands 
intelligence in the highest degree. For example, 
suppose animal secretions to be elective attrac- 
tions, and that such and such attractions univer- 
sally belong to such and such substances ; in all 
which there is no intellect concerned : still the 
choice and collocation of these substances, the 
fixing upon right substances, and disposing them 
in right places, must be an act of intelligence. 
"What mischief would follow, were there a single 
transposition of the secretory organs: a single mis- 
take in arranging the glands which compose them ! 
"There may be many second causes, and many 
courses of second causes, one behind another, 
between what we observe of nature and the 
Deity ; but there must be intelligence somewhere : 
there must be more in nature than what we see ; 
and among the things unseen, there must be an 
intelligent, designing author. The philosopher 
beholds with astonishment the production of 
things around him. Unconscious particles of 
matter take their stations, and severally range 
themselves in an order, so as to become collect- 
ively plants or animals, i. e., organized bodies, 
with parts bearing strict and evident relation to 
one another, and to the utility of the whole ; and 
it should seem that these particles could not 
move in any other way than as they do ; for they 
testify not the smallest sign of choice, or liberty, 
or discretion. There may be particular intelli- 
gent beings guiding these motions in each case ; 
or they may be the result of trains of mechanical 
dispositions, fixed beforehand by an intelligent 
appointment, and kept in action by a power at 
the centre. But in either case there must be in- 
telligence." 



CH. I.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



185 



The above arguments, as they irresistibly con- 
firm the Scripture doctrine of the existence of 
an intelligent First Cause, expose the extreme 
folly and absurdity of Atheism. The first of the 
leading theories which it has assumed, is the 
eternity of matter. "When this means the eternity 
of the world in its present form and constitution, 
it is contradicted by the changes which are actu- 
ally and every moment taking place in it ; and, 
as above argned, by the contrivance which it 
everywhere presents, and which, it has been 
proved, necessarily supposes that designing in- 
telligence we call God. When it means the 
eternity of unorganized matter only, the subject 
which has received those various forms and 
orderly arrangements which imply contrivance 
and final causes, it leaves untouched the question 
of an intelligent cause, the author of the forms 
with which it has been impressed. A creative 
cause may, and must, nevertheless exist; and 
this was the opinion of many of the ancient 
theistical philosophers, who ascribed eternity 
both to God and to matter ; and considered cre- 
ation not as the bringing of something out of 
nothing, but as the framing of what actually 
existed without order and without end. But 
though this tenet was held, in conjunction with 
a belief in the Deity, by many who had not the 
light of the Scripture revelation, yet its manifest 
tendency is to Atheism, because it supposes the 
impossibility of creation in the absolute sense ; 
and thus produces limited notions of God, from 
which the transition to an entire denial of him 
is an easy step. In modern times, therefore, the 
opinion of the eternity of matter has been held 
by few but absolute Atheists. 

What seems to have led to the notion of a 
preexistent and eternal matter out of which the 
world was formed, was the supposed impossibi- 
lity of a creation from nothing, according to the 
maxim, "ex nihilo nihil fit." The philosophy 
was, however, bad ; because, as no contradiction 
was implied in thus ascribing to God the power 
to create out of nothing, it was a matter of 
choice whether to allow what was merely not 
comprehensible by man, or to put limitations with- 
out reason to the power of God. Thus Cudworth : 

"Because it is undeniably certain, concerning 
ourselves and all imperfect beings, that none of 
these can create any new substance, men are apt 
to measure all things by their own scantling, and 
to supposo it universally impossible for any 
power whatever thus to create. But since it is 
certain that imperfect beings can themselves 
produce some things out of nothing preexisting, 
as new cogitations, new local motion, and new modi- 
fications of things corporeal, it is surely reason- 
able to think that an absolutely perfect being 



1 can do something more, i. e., create new sub- 
stances, or give them their whole being. And it 
I may well be thought as easy for God or an omni- 
I potent Being to make a whole world, matter and 
all, hi; owe ovtuv, as it is for us to create a thought 
or to move a finger, or for the sun to send out 
rays, or a candle light, or, lastly, for an opaque 
body to produce an image of itself in a glass or 
water, or to project a shadow: all these imper- 
fect things being but the energies, rags, images, or 
shadows of the Deity. For a substance to be 
made out of nothing by God, or a Being infi- 
nitely perfect, is not for it to be made out of 
nothing in the impossible sense, because it comes 
from him who is all. Nor can it be said to be 
impossible for any thing whatever to be made by 
that which hath not only infinitely greater perfec- 
tion, but also infinite active power. It is indeed 
true that infinite power itself cannot do things 
in their own nature impossible ; and, therefore, 
those who deny creation ought to prove that it is 
absolutely impossible for a substance, though not 
for an accident or modification, to be brought 
from non-existence into being. But nothing is 
in itself impossible which does not imply a con- 
tradiction ; and though it be a contradiction for 
a thing to be and not to be at the same time, 
there is surely no contradiction in conceiving an 
imperfect being, which before was not, afterward 
to be." 

It is not necessary to refer to the usual meta- 
physical arguments to show the non-eternity of 
matter, by proving that its existence must be 
necessary if it be eternal ; and, if necessary, 
that it must be infinite, etc. They are not of 
much value. Every man bears in himself the 
proof of a creation out of nothing, so that the 
objection from the impossibility of the thing is 
at once removed. 

"That sensation, intelligence, consciousness, 
and volition, are not the result of any modifica- 
tions of figure and motion, is a truth as evident 
as that consciousness is not swift, nor volition 
square. If, then, these be the powers or proper- 
ties of a being distinct from matter, which we 
think capable of the completest proof, every man 
who docs not believe that his mind has existed 
and been conscious from eternity, must be con- 
vinced that the power of creation has been 
exerted on himself. If it be denied that there is 
any immaterial substance in man, still it must be 
confessed that, as matter is not essentially con- 
scious, and cannot bo made so by any particular 
organization, there is some real thing or entity, 

call it what you please, whieh 1ms either existed 

and been Conscious from eternity, or been in time 
brought from nonentity into existence by an 
exertion of infinite power." 



186 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



The former no sober person will contend for : 
and the latter, therefore, must be admitted. 

On these grounds the absurdity of Atheism is 
manifest. If it attributes the various arrange- 
ments of material things to chance, that is, to 
nothing, it rests in design without a designer ; in 
without a cause. If it allow an intel- 
ligent cause operating to produce these effects. 
but denies him to be almighty by ascribing 
eternity to matter, and placing its creation be- 
yond his power, it acknowledges with us, indeed, 
a God, but makes him an imperfect being, limited 
in his power ; and it chooses to acknowledge this 
limited and imperfect being not only without 
reason — for we have just seen that creation out 
of nothing implies no contradiction — but even 
against reason ; for the acknowledgment of a 
creation out of nothing must be forced from him 
by his own experience, unless he will contend 
that that conscious being himself may have existed 
from eternity without being conscious of exist- 
ence, except for the space of a few past years. 

On some modern schemes of Atheism, Paley 
justly remarks : 

'■I much doubt whether the new schemes have 
advanced any thing upon the old, or done more ; 
than changed the terms of the nomenclature. 
For instance, I could never see the difference . 
between the antiquated system of atoms and 
Button's organic molecules. This philosopher, J 
having made a planet by knocking off from the ! 
sun a piece of melted glass, in consequence of i 
the stroke of a comet : and having set it in mo- : 
tion by the same stroke, both round its own axis 
and the sun, finds his next difficulty to be, how 
to bring plants and animals upon it. In order to 
solve this difficulty, we are to suppose the uni- 
verse replenished with particles endowed with 
life, but without organization or senses of their 
own : and endowed also with a tendency to mar- 
shal themselves into organized forms. The con- 
course of these particles, by virtue of this 
tendency, but without intelligence, will, or direc- 
tion, (for I do not find that any of these qualities 
are ascribed to them.) has produced the living 
forms which we now see. 

''Very few of the conjectures which philoso- 
phers hazard upon these subjects, have more of 
pretension in them than the challenging you to 
ehow the direct impossibility of the hypothesis. 
In the present example, there seemed to be a 
positive objection to the whole scheme upon the 
very face of it: which was, that, if the case were 
as here represented, new combinations ought to 
be perpetually taking place : new plants and 
animals, or organized bodies which were neither, 
ought to be starting up before our eyes every 
day. For this, however, our philosopher has an 



[part n. 



answer. While so many forms of plants and 
animals are already in existence, and conse- 
quently so many 'internal moulds,' as he calls 
them, are prepared and at hand, the organic 
particles run into these moulds, and are employed 
in supplying an accession of substance to them, 
as well for their growth as for their propagation: 
by which means things keep their ancient course. 
But, says the same philosopher, should any 
general loss or destruction of the present consti- 
tution of organized bodies take place, the parti- 
cles, for want of 'moulds' into which they might 
enter, would run into different combinations, and 
replenish the waste with new species of organ- 
ized substances. 

-Is there any history to countenance this 
notion? Is it known that any destruction has 
been so repaired ? Any desert thus re-peopled ? 

'•But these wonder-working instruments — 
these 'internal moulds' — what are they after all? 
What, when examined, but a name without sig- 
nification? unintelligible, if not self-contradict- 
ory : at the best, differing in nothing from the 
' essential forms' of the Greek philosophy. One 
short sentence of Buffon's works exhibits his 
scheme as follows: 'When this nutritious and 
prolific matter, which is diffused throughout all 
nature, passes through the internal mould of an 
animal or vegetable, and finds a proper matrix 
or receptacle, it gives rise to an animal or vege- 
table of the same species.' Does any reader 
annex a meaning to the expression 'internal 
mould,' in this sentence? Ought it then to be 
said that though we have little notion of an 
internal mould, we have not much more of a 
designing mind? The very contrary of this 
assertion is the truth. When we speak of an 
artificer or an architect, we talk of what is com- 
prehensible to our understanding, and familiar 
to our experience. We use no other terms than 
what refer us for their meaning to our conscious- 
ness and observation — what express the constant 
objects of both: whereas names like that we 
have mentioned refer us to nothing — excite no 
idea — convey a sound to the ear, but I think do 
no more. 

"Another system which has lately been brought 
forward, and with much ingenuity, is that of 
appetencies. The principle, and the short account 
of the theory, is this : pieces of soft, ductile 
matter, being endued with propensities or appe- 
tencies for particular actions, would, by continual 
endeavors carried on through a long series of 
generations, work themselves gradually into 
suitable forms : and at length acquire, though 
perhaps by obscure and almost imperceptible 
improvements, an organization fitted to the action 
which their respective propensities led them to 



CH. I.] 

exert. A piece of animated matter, for example, 
that was endued with a propensity to fly, though 
ever so shapeless, though no other we will sup- 
pose than a round hall, to begin with, would, in 
a course of ages, if not in a million of years, 
perhaps in a hundred millions of years, (for our 
theorists, having eternity to dispose of, are never 
sparing in time,) acquire wings. The same ten- 
dency to locomotion in an aquatic animal, or 
rather in an animated lump which might happen 
to he surrounded by water, would end in the 
production of fins: in a living substance, confined 
to the solid earth, would put out legs and feet ; 
or if it took a different turn, would break the 
body into ringlets, and conclude by crawling upon 
the ground. 

"The scheme under consideration is open to 
the same objection with other conjectures of a 
similar tendency, namely, a total defect of evi- 
dence. No changes like those which the theory 
requires have ever been observed. All the 
changes in Ovid's Metamorphoses might have 
been effected by these appetencies, if the 
theory were true ; yet not an example, nor 
the pretence of an example, is offered of a 
single change being known to have taken place. 

"The solution, when applied to the works 
of nature generally, is contradicted by many 
of the phenomena, and totally inadequate to 
others. The ligaments or strictures, by which 
the tendons are tied down at the angles of the 
joints, could by no possibility be formed by 
the motion or exercise of the tendons them- 
selves; by any appetency exciting these parts 
into action; or by any tendency arising there- 
from. The tendency is all the other way ; the 
conatus in constant opposition to them. Length 
of time does not help the case at all, but the 
reverse. The valves also in the blood-vessels 
could never be formed in the manner which 
our theorist proposes. The blood, in its right 
and natural course, has no tendency to form 
them. When obstructed or refluent, it has 
the contrary. These parts could not grow out 
of their use, though they had eternity to 
grow in. 

"The senses of animals appear to me alto- 
gether incapable of receiving the explanation 
of their origin which this theory affords. In- 
cluding under the word 'sense' the organ and 
the perception, we have no account of either. 
How will our philosopher get at vision, or make 
an eye? How should the blind animal affect 
light, of which blind animals, wo know, have 
neither conception nor desire? Affecting it, by 
what operation of its will, by what endeavor 
to see, could it so determine the fluids of its 
body, as to inchoate tho formation of an eye ? 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



187 



Or suppose the eye formed, would the percep- 
tion follow? The same of the other senses. 
And this objection holds its force, ascribe what 
you will to the hand of time, to the power of 
habit, to changes too slow to be observed by 
man, or brought within any comparison which 
he is able to make of past things with the pre- 
sent: concede what you please to these arbitrary 
and unattested suppositions, how will they help 
you ? Here is no inception. No laws, no course, 
no powers of nature which prevail at present, 
nor any analogous to these, could give com- 
mencement to a new sense. And it is in vain to 
inquire, how that might proceed which could 
never begin. 

"In the last place: What do these appeten- 
cies mean when applied to plants? I am not 
able to give a signification to the term, which 
can be transferred from animals to plants ; 
or which is common to both. Yet a no less 
successful organization is found in plants, than 
what obtains in animals. A solution is wanted 
for one as well as the other. 

"Upon the whole: after all the schemes and 
struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the neces- 
sary resort is a Deity. The marks of design are 
too strong to be got over. Design must have 
had a designer. That designer must have been 
a person. That person is God." 

Well has it been said, that Atheism is, in all 
its theories, a credulity of the grossest kind, 
equally degrading to the understanding and to 
the heart ; for what reflecting and honest mind 
can for a moment put these theories into com- 
petition with that revealed in the Scriptures, at 
once so sublime and so convincing ; and which, 
instead of shunning, like those just mentioned, 
an appeal to facts, bids us look to the heavens 
and to the earth ; assemble the aggregate of 
beings, great and small; and examine then- 
structure, and mark their relations, in proof 
that there must exist an all-wise and an almighty 
Creator ? 

Such is the evidence which the doctrine of 
a Deity receives from experience, observation, 
and rational induction, a posteriori. The argu- 
ment thus stated has an overwhelming force, 
and certainly needs no other, though attempts 
have been made to obtain proof d priori, and 
thus to meet and rout tho forces of the enemy 
in both directions. No instance is however I 
believe on record of an atheistic conversion 
having been produced by this prooess, and it 
may be rauked among the over-iealous attempts 
of the advocates of truth. It is well intent ioned, 
but unsatisfactory; and, so far as on the one 
hand it has led to a negleol of the more con- 
vincing and powerful course of argument drawn 



188 



THEOLOQICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



from "the things which do appear ," and, on the 
other, has encouraged a dependence upon a 
mode of investigation to which the human mind is 
inadequate, which in many instances is an 
utter mental delusion, and which scarcely two 
minds will conduct in the same manner, it has 
probably been mischievous in its effects, by 
inducing a skepticism not arising out of the 
nature of the case, but from the imperfect and 
unsatisfactory investigations of the human un- 
derstanding, pushed beyond the limit of its 
powers. In most instances it is a sword which 
cuts two ways ; and the mere imaginary assump- 
tions of those who think they have found out a 
new way to demonstrate truth, have in many 
instances either done disservice to it by absurd- 
ity, or yielded principles which unbelievers have 
connected with the most injurious conclusions. 
We need only instance the doctrine of the 
necessary existence of the Deity, when reasoned 
d, priori. Some acute infidels have thanked 
those for the discovery who intended nothing 
so little as to encourage error ; and have argued 
from that notion, that the Supreme Being 
cannot be a free agent, and have thus set the 
first principles of religion at variance with the 
Scriptures. The fact seems to be, that though, 
when once the existence of a first and intelli- 
gent Cause is established, some of his attributes 
are capable of proof & priori, (how much that 
proof is worth is another question,) yet that 
his existence itself admits of no such demon- 
stration, and that in the nature of the thing it is 
impossible. 

The reason of this is drawn from the very 
nature of an argument d, priori. It is an argu- 
ment from an antecedent to a consequent, from 
cause to effect. If therefore there be any 
thing existing in nature, or could haxe been, 
from which the being and attributes of God 
might have been derived, or any thing which 
can be justly considered as prior in order of 
nature or conception to the first cause of all 
things, then may the argument from such 
prior thing or principle be good and valid. 
But if there is in reality nothing prior to the 
being of God, considered as the first cause and 
causality, nothing in nature, nothing in reason, 
then the attempt is fruitless to argue from it; 
and we improperly pretend to search into the 
grounds or reasons of the first cause, of whom 
antecedently we neither do nor can know any 
thing. 

As the force of the argument d, priori has 
however been much debated, it may not be 
useless to enter somewhat more fully into the 
subject. 

One of the earliest and ablest advocates of 



this mode of demonstrating the existence of 
God, was Dr. Samuel Clarke. He however first 
proceeds d, posteriori to prove, from the actual 
existence of dependent beings, the existence 
from eternity of " one unchangeable and inde- 
pendent Being ;" and thus makes himself debtor 
to this obvious and plain demonstration before 
he can prove that this Being is, in his sense, 
necessarily existent. Necessity of existence is 
therefore tacitly acknowledged not to be a 
tangible idea in the first instance ; and the 
weight of the proof is tacitly confessed to rest 
upon the argument from effect to cause, which if 
admitted needs no assistance from a more ab- 
stract course of arguing. For if the first argu- 
ment be allowed, every thing else follows ; and 
it must be allowed, before the higher ground of 
demonstration can be taken. We have seen 
the guarded manner in which Howe, in the 
quotation before given, has stated the notion of 
the necessary existence of the Divine Being. 
Dr. S. Clarke and his followers have refined 
upon this, and given a view of the subject which 
is liable to the strongest objections. His words 
are, "To be self-existent is to exist by an 
absolute necessity, originally in the nature of the 
thing itself;" and "this necessity must not be 
barely consequent upon our supposition of the 
existence of such a being, for then it would not 
be a necessity absolutely such in itself, nor be 
the ground or foundation of the existence of any 
thing, being on the contrary only a consequent 
of it ; but it must antecedently force itself upon 
us whether we will or not ; even when we are 
endeavoring to suppose that no such being ex- 
ists." — Demonstration 1. 

One of the reasons given for this opinion is, 
"There must be in nature a permanent ground 
or reason for the existence of the first cause, 
otherwise its being would be owing to mere 
chance." But to this it has been well replied, 
"Why must we say that God has his existence 
from, or that he does exist for some prior cause 
or reason? Why may we not say that God 
exists as the first cause of all things, and there- 
upon surcease from all further inquiries ? God 
himself said ' I am, ' and he had done. But the 
argument, if it did prove any thing, would 
prove too much. To evince which, let the same 
way of reasoning be applied to what you call 
the ground or the reason of the existence of the 
first cause, and then, with very little variation, I 
retort upon you in your own words. If this 
ground or reason be itself any thing, or any 
property of any thing, of what nature, kind, or 
degree soever, there must, according to your way 
of reasoning, be in nature a ground or reason 
of the existence of such your antecedent ncces- 



en. i.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



189 



sity, ' a reason why it is, rather than why it is 
not, otherwise its existence will be owing to, or 
dependent on, mere chance.' You observe else- 
where that 'nothing can be more absurd than 
to suppose that any thing, or any circumstance 
of any thing, is, and yet that there is absolutely 
no reason why it is, rather than why it is not.' 
This consideration you allege as a vindication of 
your assigning a reason, a priori, for the exist- 
ence of the first cause. If therefore your sup- 
posed reason, ground, Or necessity, be 'any 
thing or any supposable circumstance of any 
thing,' as surely it must be, if not mere nothing, 
then, by the same rule, such 'ground,' 'neces- 
sity,' etc., must have a reason, & priori, why it 
is, rather than why it is not, and after that 
another, and then a third, and so on in infini- 
tum. And thus in your way we may be always 
seeking a first cause, and never be able to find 
one, whereon to fix ourselves, or check our 
restless and unprofitable inquiries. While in- 
deed we consider only inferior existences and 
second causes, there will always be room left 
for inquiring why such things are, and how 
such things came to be as they are; because this 
is only seeking and investigating the initial, the 
efficient, or the final cause of their existence. 
But when we are advanced beyond all causes pro- 
catarctical and final, it remains only to say, 
that such is our first cause and causality, that 
we know it exists, and without prior cause ; and 
with this you yourself will be obliged to fall in, 
the first step you further take ; for if we ask 
you of the antecedent necessity, whence it is, and 
what prior ground there was for it, you must 
yourself be content to say — so it is, you know 
not why, you know not how." — Gretton's Review 
of the Argument a priori. 

The necessary existence of the first cause, 
considered as a logical necessity, may be made out 
without difficulty, and is indeed demonstrated 
in the arguments given above ; but the natural 
necessity of his existence is a subject too subtile 
for human grasp, and, from its obscurity, is cal- 
culated to mislead. Every thing important in 
the idea, so far as it is unexceptionable, is well 
and safely expressed by Baxter: "That which 
could be eternally without a cause, and itself 
causo all things, is self-sufficient and independ- 
ent." (Reasons of the Christian Religion.) This 
seems tho only true notion of necessary exist- 
ence, and care should bo taken to use the term 
in a definite and comprehensible sense. The 
word necessity when applied to existence may bo 
taken in two acceptations, either as it arises 
from the relation which the existence of that of 
which it is affirmed has to the existence of 
other things, or from tho relation which tho 



actual existence of that thing has to the manner 
of its own existence. In the former sense, it 
denotes that the supposition of the non-existence 
of that of which the necessity is affirmed, implies 
the non-existence of things we know to exist. 
Thus some independent being does necessarily 
exist ; because to suppose no independent being, 
implies that there are no dependent beings, the 
contrary of which we know to be true. In 
the second sense, necessity means that the being 
of which it is affirmed exists after such a manner 
as that it never could in time past have been 
non-existent, or can in future time cease to be. 
Thus every independent being, as it exists with- 
out a cause, is necessarily existing, because 
existence is essential to such a being; so that 
it never could begin to exist, and never can 
cease to be ; for to suppose a being to begin 
to exist, or to lose its existence, is to suppose 
a change from non- entity to entity, or vice 
versa; and to suppose such a change is to 
suppose a cause upon which that being de- 
pends. Every being therefore which is independ- 
ent, that is, which had no cause of its existence, 
must exist necessarily, and cannot possibly have 
begun to exist in time past, or cease to be in 
time future. 

Still further on Dr. S. Clarke's view of the 
necessary existence of the Supreme Being, it has 
been observed : 

"But what is this necessity which proves so 
much ? It is the ground of existence (he says) 
of that which exists of itself; and if so, it must, 
in the order of nature, and in our conceptions, 
be antecedent to that being of whose existence 
it is the ground. Concerning such a principle, 
there are but three suppositions which can pos- 
sibly be made ; and all of them may be shown 
to be absurd and contradictory. "We may sup- 
pose either the substance itself, some property 
of that substance, or something extrinsic to both, 
to be this antecedent ground of existence prior 
in the order of nature to the first cause. 

" One would think, from the turn of the argu- 
ment which here represents this antecedent 
necessity as efficient and causal, that it were 
considered as something extrinsic to the first 
cause. Indeed, if the words have any meaning 
in them at all, or any force of argument, they 
must bo so understood, just as we understand 
them of any external cause producing its effect. 
But as an extrinsic principle is absurd in itself, 
and is besides rejected by Dr. S. Clarke, who Bays 
expressly that 'of the thing which derives not its 
being from any other thing, this necessity or 
ground of existence must be in the thing itself,' 
we need not say a word more of the last of these 
suppositions. 



190 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



"Let us then consider the first: let us take 
the substance itself, and try whether it can be 
conceived as prior or antecedent to itself in our 
conceptions or in the order of nature. Surely 
we need not observe that nothing can be more 
absurd or contradictory than such a supposition. 
Dr. S. Clarke himself repeatedly affirms, and it 
would be strange indeed if he did not affirm, that 
no being, no thing whatever, can be conceived as I 



in any respect prior to the first cause. 

" The only remaining supposition is, that some 
attribute or property of the self-existent being 
may be conceived as in the order of nature ante- 
cedent to that being. But this, if possible, is 
more absurd than either of the two preceding 
suppositions. An attribute is attributed to its 
subject as its ground or support, and not the ! 
subject to its attribute. A property, in the very 
notion of it, is proper to the substance to which , 
it belongs, and subsequent to it both in our con- 
ceptions and in the order of nature. An ante- , 
cedent attribute, or antecedent property, is a 
solecism as great, and a contradiction as flat, as 
an antecedent subsequent or a subsequent ante- 
cedent* understood in the same sense and in the ; 
same syllogism. Every property or attribute, as 
such, presupposes its subject ; and cannot other- 
wise be understood. This is a truth so obvious \ 
and so forcible that it sometimes extorts the ! 
assent even of those who upon other occasions ! 
labor to obscure it. It is confessed by Dr. S. 
Clarke that 'the scholastic way of proving the 
existence of the self-existent being from the 
absolute perfection of his nature, is vorepov 
Trporepov. For all or any perfections (says he) 
presuppose existence ; which is a petiiio prin- 
cipal If therefore properties, modes, or attri- 
butes in God, be considered as perfections, (and 
it is impossible to consider them as any thing 
else.) then, by this confession of the great author 
himself, they must all or any of them presuppose 
existence. It is indeed immediately added in 
the same place, 'that bare necessity of existence 
does not presuppose, but infer existence ;' which 
is true only if such necessity be supposed to be 
a principle extrinsic, the absurdity of which has 
been already shown, and is indeed universally 
confessed. If it be a mode or property, it must 
presuppose the existence of its subject, as cer- 
tainly and as evidently as it is a mode or a pro- 
perty. It might perhaps a posteriori infer the 
existence of its subject, as effects may infer a 
cause ; but that it should infer in the other way 
a priori is altogether as impossible as that a 
triangle should be a square, or a globe a parallel- 
ogram." — Law's Inquiry. 

The true idea of the necessary existence of 
God is, that he thus exists because it is his 



[PART II. 

nature, as an independent and uncaused being, 
to be: his being is necessary because it is unde- 
rived, not underived because it is necessary. The 
first is the sober sense of the word among our 
old divines : the latter is a theory of modern 
date, and leads to no practical result whatever, 
except to entangle the mind in difficulty, and to 
give a color to some very injurious errors. 

Equally unsatisfactory, and therefore quite as 
little calculated to serve the cause of truth, is 
the argument from space : which is represented 
by Xewton, Clarke, and others, as an infinite mode 
of an infinite substance, and that substance God, so 
that from the existence of space itself may be 
argued the existence of one supreme and infinite 
Being. Berkeley, Law, and others, have however 
shown the fallacy of considering space either as 
a substance or a mode, and have brought these 
speculations under the dominion of common 
sense, and rescued them from metaphysical de- 
lusion. They have rightly observed that space 
is a mere negation, and that to suppose it to have 
existence, because it has some properties, for 
instance, of penetrability, or the capacity of re- 
ceiving body, is the same thing as to affirm that 
darkness must be something because it has the 
capacity of receiving light, and silence something 
because it has the property of admitting sound, 
and absence the property of being supplied by 
presence. To reason in this manner is to assign 
absolute negations, and such as, in the same way, 
may be applied to nothing, and then call them 
positive properties, and so infer that the chimera, 
thus clothed with them, must needs be something. 
The arguments in favor of the real existence of 
space as something positive, have failed in the 
hands of their first great authors, and the 
attempts since made to uphold them have added 
nothing but what is exceedingly futile, and 
indeed often obviously absurd. The whole of 
this controversy has left us only to lament the 
waste of labor which has been employed in 
erecting around the impregnable ramparts of the 
great arguments on which the cause rests with 
so much safety, the useless incumbrances of mud 
and straw. 

The proof of the being of a God reposes wholly 
then upon arguments a posteriori, and it needs no 
other ; though we shall see as we proceed that 
even these arguments, strong and irrefutable as 
they are when rightly applied, have been used 
to prove more, as to some of the attributes of God, 
than can satisfactorily be drawn from them. 
Even with this safe and convincing process of 
reasoning at our command, we shall find, at 
every step of an inquiry into the Divine nature, 
our entire dependence upon Divine revelation for 
our primary light. That must both originate our 



CH. II.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



191 



investigations, and conduct them to a satisfactory 
result. 

<•» 

CHAPTER II. 

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 1 — UNITY, SPIRITUALITY. 

The existence of a supreme Creator and First 
Cause of all things, himself uncaused, and inde- 
pendent, and therefore self-existent, having been 
proved, the next question is, whether there exists 
more than one such Being, or, in other words, 
whether we are to ascribe to him an absolute 
unity or soleness. On this point the testimony 
of the Scriptures is express and unequivocal. 
"The Lord our God is one Lord." Deut vi. 4. 
" The Lord he is God : there is none else beside 
him." Deut. iv. 35. " Thou art God alone." 
Psalm lxxxvi. 10. "We know that an idol is 
nothing in the world, and there is none other 
God but one." Nor is this stated in Scripture 
merely to exclude all other creators, governors, 
and deities, in connection with men, and the sys- 
tem of created things which we behold ; but ab- 
solutely, so as to exclude the idea of the existence, 
anywhere, of more than one Divine nature. 

Of this unity the proper Scripture notion may 
be thus expressed. Some things are one by virtue 
of composition, but God hath no parts, nor is 
compounded ; but is a pure simple Being. Some 
are one in kind, but admit many individuals of 
the same kind, as men, angels, and other crea- 
tures ; but God is so one that there are no other 
gods, though there are other beings. Some 
things are so one, as that there exists no other of 
the same kind, as are one sun, one moon, one 
world, one heaven; yet there might have been 
more if it had pleased God so to will it. But 
God is so one that there is not, there cannot be, 
another God. Ho is one only, and takes up the 
Deity so fully as to admit no fellow. (Lawson's 
Theo-Politica. ) 

The proof of this important doctrine from 
Scripture is short and simple. We have un- 
doubted proofs of a revelation from the Maker 
and Governor of this present world. Granting 
him to be wise and good, "it is impossible that 
God should lie," and his own testimony assigns 
to him an exclusive Deity. If we admit the au- 

l " They aro called attributes, because God attributes them 
to and affirms them of himself: properties, because wo con- 
ceive them proper to God, and such as can be predicated 
only of him, so that by them we distinguish him from all 
ether beings: perfections, because thoy are the several 
^presentations of that one perfection which is hknselfi 
names and terms, because they express and signify some- 
thing of his essence: notion*, because (hey aro so many 
apprehensions of his being as wo conceive of him in our 
minds."— La wson'h Thco- Politico. 



thority of the Scriptures, we admit a Deity : if 
we admit one God, we exclude all others. The 
truth of Scripture, resting as we have seen on 
proofs which cannot be resisted without univer- 
sal skepticism, and universal skepticism being 
proved to be impossible by the common conduct 
of even the most skeptical men, the proof of the 
Divine unity rests precisely on the same basis, 
and is sustained by the same certain evidence. 

On this, as on the former point, however, there 
is much rational confirmation, to which revelation 
has given us the key ; though without that, and 
even in its strongest form, it may be concluded 
from the prevalence of polytheism among the 
generality of nations, and of dualism among 
others, that the human mind would have had but 
too indistinct a view of this kind of evidence to 
rest in a conclusion so necessary to true religion 
and to settled rules of morals. 

To prove the unity of God, several arguments 
a priori have been made use of: to which mode 
of proof, provided the argument itself be logical, 
no objection lies. For though it appears absurd 
to attempt to prove a priori the existence of a 
first cause, seeing that nothing can, either in 
order of time or order of nature, he, prior to him, 
or be conceived prior to him, yet the existence 
of an independent and self-existent cause of all 
things being made known to us by revelation, and 
confirmed by the phenomena of actual and 
dependent existence, a ground is laid for con- 
sidering, from this fact, which is antecedent in 
order of nature, though not in order of time, 
the consequent attributes with which such a 
Being must be invested. 

Among the arguments of this class to prove the 
Divine unity, the following are the principal : — 

Dr. S. Clarke argues from his view of the 
necessary existence of the Divine Being : — 
"Necessity," he observes, "absolute in itself, is 
simple, and uniform, and universal, without any 
possible difference, difforniity, or variety whatso- 
ever; and all variety or difference of existence 
must needs arise from some external cause, and 
be dependent upon it." And again: "To sup- 
pose two or more distinct beings existing of them- 
selves necessarily, and independent of each other, 
implies this contradiction, that each of them 
being independent of each other, they may either 
of them bo supposed to exist alone, so that it 
will be no contradiction to supposo the other not 
to exist, and consequently neither of them will be 
necessarily existing." [Demonstration, Prop. 7.) 
These arguments being, however, wholly founded 
upon that peculiar notion of necessary existence 
Which is advocated by the author, derive their 
Whole authority from the principle itself, to which 
some objections have been offered. 



192 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



The argument from space must share the same 
fate. If space be an infinite attribute of an 
infinite substance, and an essential attribute of 
Deity, then the existence of one infinite sub- 
stance, and one only, may probably be argued 
from the existence of this infinite property ; but 
if space be a mere negation, and neither sub- 
stance nor attribute, which has been sufficiently 
proved by the writers before referred to, then it 
is worth nothing as a proof of the unity of God. 

Wollaston argues, that if two or more inde- 
pendent beings exist, their natures must be the 
same, or different: if different, either contrary 
or various. If contrary, each must destroy the 
operations of the other: if various, one must 
have what the other wants, and both cannot be 
perfect. If their nature be perfectly the same, 
then they would coincide, and indeed be but one, 
though called two. [Religion of Nature.) 

Bishop Wilkins says, if God be an infinitely 
perfect being, it is impossible to imagine two 
such beings at the same time, because they 
must have several perfections, or the same. If 
the former, neither of them can be God, because 
neither of them has all possible perfections. If 
they have both equal perfections, neither of them 
can be absolutely perfect, because it is not so 
great to have the same equal perfections in 
common with another, as to be superior to all 
others. [Principles of Natural Religion.) 

"The nature of God," says Bishop Pearson, 
"consists in this, that he is the prime and 
original cause of all things, as an independent 
being, upon whom all things else depend, and 
likewise the ultimate end or final cause of all ; 
but in this sense two prime causes are unimagin- 
able ; and for all things to depend on one, and 
yet for there to be more independent beings than 
one, is a clear contradiction." — Exposition of the 
Creed. 

The best argument of this kind is, however, 
that which arises from absolute perfection, the 
idea of which forces itself upon our minds when 
we reflect upon the nature of a self-existent and 
independent Being. Such a Being there is, as 
is sufficiently proved from the existence of 
beings dependent and derived ; and it is impos- 
sible to admit that without concluding that he 
who is independent and underived, who subsists 
wholly and only of himself, without depending 
on any other, must owe this absoluteness to 
so peculiar an excellency of his own nature 
as we cannot well conceive to be less than that 
by which he comprehends in himself the most 
boundless and unlimited fulness of being, life, 
power, or whatsoever can be conceived under 
the name of a perfection. "To such a Being 
infinity may be justly ascribed ; and infinity, not I 



i extrinsically considered with respect to time and 
place, but intrinsically, as imparting bottomless- 
profundity of essence, and the full confluence of 
all kinds and degrees of perfection without bound 
or limit." (Howe's Living Temple.) "Limita- 
tion is the effect of some superior cause, which, 
in the present instance, there cannot be : con- 
sequently, to suppose limits where there can be 
no limiter, is to suppose an effect without a 
cause. For a being to be limited or deficient in 
any respect, is to be dependent in that respect 
on some other being which gave it just so much 
and no more : consequently, that being which in 
no respect depends upon any other, is in no 
respect limited or deficient. In all beings capable 
of increase or diminution, and consequently in- 
capable of perfection or absolute infinity, limita- 
tion or defect is indeed a necessary consequence 
of existence, and is only a negation of that 
perfection which is wholly incompatible with 
their nature ; and, therefore, in these beings it 
requires no further cause. But in a being natur- 
ally capable of perfection or absolute infinity, all 
imperfection and finiteness, as it cannot flow from 
the nature of that being, seems to require some 
ground or reason ; which reason, as it is foreign 
from the being itself, must be the effect of some 
other external cause, and consequently cannot 
have place in the first cause. That the self- 
existent Being is capable of perfection or abso- 
lute infinity must be granted, because he is 
manifestly the subject of one infinite or perfect 
attribute, namely, eternity, or absolute invariable 
existence. In this respect his existence is per- 
fect, and, therefore, it may be perfect in every 
other respect also. Now that which is the sub- 
ject of one infinite attribute or perfection, must 
have all its attributes infinitely or in perfection : 
since to have any perfections in a finite limited 
manner when the subject and these perfections 
are both capable of strict infinity, would be the 
fore-mentioned absurdity of positive limitation 
without a cause. To suppose this eternal and 
independent Being limited in or by its own 
nature, is to suppose some antecedent nature or 
limiting quality superior to that Being, to the 
existence of which no thing, no quality, is in 
any respect antecedent or superior. The same 
method of reasoning will prove knowledge and 
every other perfection to be infinite in the Deity, 
when once we have proved that perfection to 
belong to him at all : at least it will show that 
to suppose it limited is unreasonable, since we 
can find no manner of ground for limitation in 
any respect ; and this is as far as we need go, 
or perhaps as natural light will lead us." — 
Dr. Gleig. 
The connection between the steps of the argu- 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. II.] 

ment from the self-existence and infinity of the 
Deity to his unity, may be thus traced. There 
is actually existing an absolute, entire fulness of 
wisdom, power, and of all other perfection. This 
absolute, entire fulness of perfection is infinite. 
This infinite perfection must have its seat some- 
where. Its primary original seat can be nowhere 
but in necessary self- subsisting being. If, then, we 
suppose a plurality of self-originate beings concur- 
ring to make up the seat or subject of this infinite 
perfection, each one must either be of finite and 
partial perfection, or infinite and absolute. Infi- 
nite and absolute it cannot be, because one self- 
originate, infinitely and absolutely perfect being 
will necessarily comprehend all perfection, and 
leave nothing to the rest : nor finite, because many 
finites can never make one infinite ; nor many 
broken parcels or fragments of perfection ever 
make infinite and absolute perfection, even though 
their number, if that were possible, were infinite. 

To these arguments from the Divine nature, 
proofs of his unity are to be drawn from his 
works. While we have no revelation of or from 
any other being than from him whom we worship 
as God, so the frame and constitution of nature 
present us with a harmony and order which show 
that their Creator and Preserver is but one. 
We see but one will and one intelligence, and, 
therefore, there is but one Being. The light of 
this truth must have been greatly obscured to 
heathens, who knew not how to account for the 
admixture of good and evil which are in the 
world, and many of them, therefore, supposed 
both a good and an evil deity. To us, however, 
who know how to account for this fact from the 
relation in which man stands to the moral govern- 
ment of an offended Deity, and the connection 
of this present state with another ; and that it 
is to man a state of correction and discipline ; 
not only is this difficulty removed, but additional 
proof is afforded that the Creator and the Ruler 
of the world is but one Being. If two independ- 
ent beings of equal power concurred to make 
the world, the good and the evil would be equal; 
but the good predominates. Between the good 
and the evil thero could also be no harmony or 
connection ; but we plainly see evil subjected to 
the purposes of benevolence, and so to accord 
with it, which at once removes the objection. 

" Of the unity of the Deity," says Palcy, "the 
proof is the uniformity of plan observable in the 
universe. The univcrso itself is a system : each 
part either depending upon other parts, or being 
connected with other parts by somo common law 
of motion, or by the presence of some common 
substance. One principle of gravitation ca 

qc f<> drop toward the earth, and tho moon 
to wheel round if. One law of attraction carries 

18 



191 



all the different planets about the sun. This 
philosophers demonstrate. There are also other 
points of agreement among them, which may be 
considered as marks of the identity of their 
origin, and of their intelligent author. In all 
are found the conveniency and stability derived 
from gravitation. They all experience vicissi- 
tudes of days and nights, and changes of season. 
They all, at least Jupiter, Mars, and Venus, have 
the same advantages from their atmospheres as 
we have. In all the planets the axes of rotation 
are permanent. Nothing is more probable than 
that the same attracting influence, acting accord- 
ing to the same rule, reaches to the fixed stars ; 
but if this be only probable, another thing is 
certain, namely, that the same element of light 
does. The light from a fixed star affects our 
eyes in the same manner, is refracted and re- 
flected according to the same laws, as the light 
of a candle. The velocity of the light of the 
fixed stars is also the same as the velocity of the 
light of the sun, reflected from the satellites of 
Jupiter. The heat of the sun, in kind, differs 
nothing from the heat of a coal fire. 

"In our own globe the case is clearer. New 
countries are continually discovered, but the old 
laws of nature are always found in them : new 
plants, perhaps, or animals, but always in 
company with plants and animals which we 
already know, and always possessing many of 
the same general properties. We never get 
among such original or totally different modes 
of existence as to indicate that we are come into 
the province of a different Creator, or under the 
direction of a different will. In truth, the same 
order of things attends us wherever we go. The 
elements act upon one another, electricity ope- 
rates, the tides rise and fall, the magnetic needle 
elects its position, in one region of the earth and 
sea as well as in another. One atmosphere in- 
vests all parts of the globe, and connects all : 
one sun illuminates : one moon exerts its specific 
attraction upon all parts. If there be a variety 
in natural effects, as, for example, in the tides of 
different seas, that very variety is the result of 
the same cause, acting under different circum- 
stances. In many cases this is proved : in all," 
is probable. 

" The inspection and comparison of living 
forms add to this argument examples without 
number. Of all large terrestrial animals, the 
structure is very much alike : their senses nearly 
(lie same: their natural functions and passions 
nearly the same: their viscera nearly the same, 
both i ii substance, shape, and offioe: digestion, 

nutrition, circulation, seoretion, go on, in a simi- 
lar maimer, in all : the greal circulating fluid is 

the s;ime; for 1 think no difference has boendis* 



194 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



covered in the properties of blood, from whatever 
animal it be drawn. The experiment of trans- 
fusion proves that the blood of one animal Vill 
serve for another. The skeletons, also, of the 
larger terrestrial animals show particular varie- 
ties, but still under a great general affinity. The 
resemblance is somewhat less, yet sufficiently 
evident, between quadrupeds and birds. They 
are all alike in five respects for one in which 
they differ. 

" In fish, which belong to another department, 
as it were, of nature, the points of comparison 
become fewer. But we never lose sight of our 
analogy: e. g., we still meet with a stomach, a 
liver, a spine : with bile and blood : with teeth : 
with eyes, which eyes are only slightly varied 
from our own, and which variation, in truth, 
demonstrates, not an interruption, but a contin- 
uance of the same exquisite plan ; for it is the 
adaptation of the organ to the element, namely, 
to the different refraction of light passing into 
the eye out of a denser medium. The provinces, 
also, themselves of water and earth, are con- 
nected by the species of animals which inhabit 
both ; and also by a large tribe of aquatic ani- 
mals, which closely resemble the terrestrial in 
their internal structure : I mean the cetaceous 
tribe, which have hot blood, respiring lungs, 
bowels, and other essential parts, like those of 
land animals. This similitude surely bespeaks 
the same creation, and the same Creator. 

"Insects and shell-fish appear to me to differ 
from other classes of animals the most widely of 
any. Yet even here, besides many points of par- 
ticular resemblance, there exists a general rela- 
tion of a peculiar kind. It is the relation of 
inversion: the law of contrariety: namely, that 
whereas in other animals the bones to which the 
muscles are attached lie within the body, in 
insects and shell-fish they lie on the outside of it. 
The shell of a lobster performs to the animal the 
office of a bone, by furnishing to the tendons 
that fixed basis or immovable fulcrum, without 
which mechanically they could not act. The 
crust of an insect is its shell, and answers the 
like purpose. The shell, also, of an oyster 
stands in the place of a bone : the basis of the 
muscles being fixed to it in the same manner as, 
in other animals, they are fixed to the bones. 
All which (under wonderful varieties, indeed, 
and adaptations of form) confesses an imitation, 
a remembrance, a carrying on of the same 
plan." 

If in a large house, wherein are many man- 
sions and a vast variety of inhabitants, there 
appears exact order, all, from the highest to the 
lowest, continually attending their proper busi- 
ness, and all lodged and constantly provided for, 



suitably to their several conditions, we find our- 
selves obliged to acknowledge one wise economy ; 
and if, in a great city or commonwealth, there 
is a perfectly regular administration, so that not 
only the whole society enjoys an undisturbed 
peace, but every member has a station assigned 
him which he is best qualified to fill, the unen- 
vied chiefs constantly attending their more im- 
portant cares, served by the busy inferiors, who 
'■ have all a suitable accommodation, and food 
■ convenient for them, the very meanest minister- 
j ing to the public utility, and protected by the 
! public care : if, I say, in such a community we 
must conclude there is a ruling counsel, which 
if not naturally yet is politically one, and unless 
; united could not produce such harmony and 
order, much more have we reason to recognize 
one governing Intelligence in the earth, in which 
there are so many ranks of beings disposed of 
: in the most convenient manner, having all their 
several provinces appointed to them, and their 
several kinds and degrees of enjoyment liberally 
provided for, without encroaching upon, but 
rather being mutually useful to, each other, ac- 
cording to a settled and obvious subordination. 
What else can account for this but a sovereign 
wisdom, a common provident nature presiding 
over, and caring for, the whole ? (Aberxetht's 
Sermons.) 

The importance of the doctrine of the Divine 
unity is obvious. The existence of one God is 
the basis of all true religion. Polytheism con- 
founds and unsettles all moral distinction, di- 
I vides and destroys obligation, and takes away 
i all sure trust and hope from man. There is one 
God who created us : we are therefore his pro- 
perty, and bound to him by an absolute obliga- 
tion of obedience. He is the sole ruler of the 
world, and his one immutable will constitutes 
the one immutable law of our actions, and thus 
questions of morality are settled on permanent 
foundations. To him alone we owe repentance 
and confession of sin: to one being alone we 
are directed to look for pardon, in the method 
he has appointed ; and if he be at peace with 
us, we need fear the wrath of no other, for he is 
! supreme: we are not at a loss among a crowd of 
supposed deities, to which of them we shall turn 
! in trouble : he alone receives prayer, and he is 
j the sole and sufficient object of trust. "When we 
know Him, we know a being of absolute per- 
fection, and need no other friend or refuge. 

Among the discoveries made to us by Divine 

revelation, we find not only declarations of the 

| existence and unity of God, but of his nature or 

I substance, which is plainly affirmed to be spirit- 

ual: "God is a Spirit." The sense of the 

Scriptures in this respect cannot be mistaken. 



CH. II.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



195 



Innumerable passages and allusions in thein 
show that the terms spirit and body, or matter, 
are used in the popular sense for substances of a 
perfectly distinct kind, and which are manifested 
by distinct, and in many respects opposite and 
incommunicable, properties: that the former 
only can perceive, think, reason, will, and act : 
that the latter is passive, impercipient, divisible, 
and corruptible. Under the e views, and in this 
popular language, God is 7 spoken of in Holy 
Writ. He is spirit, not body ; mind, not matter. 
He is pure spirit, unconnected even with bodily 
form or organs : "the invisible God, whom no man 
hath seen nor can see:" an immaterial, incorrupti- 
ble, impassible substance, an immense mind or 
intelligence, self-acting, self-moving, wholly 
above the perception of bodily sense; free 
from the imperfections of matter, and all the 
infirmities of corporeal beings ; far more excel- 
lent than any finite and created spirits, because 
their Creator, and therefore styled " the Father 
of spirits," and " the God of the spirits of all 
flesh." 

Such is the express testimony of Scripture as 
to the Divine nature. That the distinction which 
it holds between matter and spirit should be 
denied or disregarded by infidel philosophers, is 
not a matter of surprise, since it is as easy and 
as consistent in them to materialize God as man. 
But that the attributes of spirit should have 
been ascribed to matter by those who neverthe- 
less profess to admit the authority of the bibli- 
cal revelation, as in the case of the modern Uni- 
tarians and some others, is an instance of 
singular inconsistency. It shows with what 
daring an unhallowed philosophy will pursue its 
speculations, and warrants the conclusion, that 
the Scriptures in such cases are not acknow- 
ledged upon their own proper principles, but only 
so far as they are supposed to agree with or not 
to oppose the philosophic system which such 
men may have adopted. For, hesitate as they 
may, to deny the distinction between matter and 
spirit is to deny the spirituality of God; and 
to contradict the distinction which, as to man, is 
constantly kept up in every part of the Bible, 
the distinction between flesh and spirit. To 
assert that consciousness, thought, volition, etc., 
arc the results of organization, is to deny, also, 
What the Scripture so expressly affirms, that the 
souls of men exist in a disembodied state; and 
that in this disembodied state, not only do they 
exii i, but thai they think and feel and act with- 
out any diminution of their energy or capacity. 
The immateriality of tho Divine Being may 
therefore be considered as a point of great im- 
portance, not only as it affects our views of his 
nature and attributes, but because, when onco 



I it is established that there exists a pure Spirit, 
living, intelligent, and invested with moral pro- 
perties, the question of the immateriality of the 

; human soul may be considered as almost settled. 
Those who deny that, must admit that the Deity 
is material ; or, if they start at this, they must 
be convicted of the unphilosophical and absurd 
attempt to invest a substance allowed to be of 
an entirely different nature — the body of man — 
with those attributes of intelligence and volition 
which, in the case of the Divine Being, they 
have allowed to be the properties of pure, un- 
embodied spirit. The propositions are totally 
inconsistent, for they who believe that God is 
wholly an immaterial, and that man is wholly a 
material being, admit that spirit is intelligent, 
and that matter is intelligent. They cannot 
then be of different essences, and if the premises 
be followed out to their legitimate conclusion, 
either that which thinks in man must be allowed 
to be spiritual, or a material Deity must follow. 
The whole truth of revelation, both as to Ged 
and his creature man, must be acknowledged, or 
the Atheism of Spinoza and Hobbes must be ad- 
mitted. 

The decision of Scripture on this point is not 
to be shaken by human reasoning, were it more 
plausible in its attempt to prove that matter is 
capable of originating thought, and that mind 
is a mere result of organization. The evidence 
from reason is however highly confirmatory of 
the absolute spirituality of the nature of God, 
and of the unthinking nature of matter. 

If we allow a First Cause at all, we must 
allow that cause to be intelligent. This has 
already been proved, from the design and con- 
trivance manifested in his works. The first argu- 
ment for the spirituality of God is, therefore, 
drawn from his intelligence, and it rests upon 
this principle, that intelligence is not a property 
of matter. 

With material substance we are largely ac- 
quainted ; and as to the great mass of material 
bodies, we have the means of knowing that they 
are wholly unintelligent. This cannot be denied 
of every unorganized portion of matter. Its 
essential properties are found to be solidity, ex- 
tension, divisibility, mobility, passiveness, etc. 
In all its forms and mutations, from the granite 
rock to the yielding atmosphere and the rapid 
lightning, these essential properties are disco- 
vered : they take an infinite variety o[' accidental 
modes, but givo no indication of intelligence, or 
approach to intelligence. If, then, to know bo 
a property of matter, it is clearly not. an essential 
property, inasmuch as it is agreed by all that 
vast masses of this sub-lance exist without this 
property, and it follows that it must be an <uv/- 



196 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II, 



dental one. This, therefore, ■would be the first 
absurdity into which those would be driven "who 
suppose the Divine nature to be material, that 
as intelligence, if allowed to be a property of 
matter, is an accidental and not an essential pro- 
perty, on this theory it -would be possible to 
conceive the existence of a Deity without any 
intelligence at all. For take away any property 
from a subject which is not essential to it, and 
its essence still remains : and if intelligence, 
which, in this view, is but an accidental attri- 
bute of Deity, were annihilated, a Deity -without 
perception, thought, or knowledge would still 
remain. So monstrous a conclusion shows, that 
if a God be at all allowed, the absolute spirit- 
uality of his nature must inevitably follow. For 
if we cannot suppose a Deity without intelli- 
gence, then do we admit intelligence to be one of 
his essential attributes ; and, as it is easy for 
every one to observe that this is not an essential 
property of matter, the substance to which it is 
essential cannot be material. 

If the unthinking nature of unorganized 
matter furnishes an argument in favor of the 
spirituality of Deity, the attempt to prpve from 
the fact of intelligence being found in connection 
with matter in an organized form, that intelli- 
gence, under certain modifications, is a property 
of matter, may from its fallacy be also made to 
yield its evidence in favor of the truth. 

The position assumed is, that intelligence is 
the result of material organization. This at 
least is not true of every form of organized 
matter. Of the unintelligent character of vege- 
tables we have the same evidence as of the earth 
on which we tread. The organization therefore 
which is assumed to be the cause of thought, is 
that which is found in animals ; and, to use the 
argument of Dr. Priestley, "the powers of sen- 
sation, or perception, and thought, as belonging 
to man, not having been found but in conjunction 
-with a certain organized system of matter,, the 
conclusion is that they depend upon such a 
system." It need not now be urged, that con- 
stant connection does not imply necessary con- 
nection ; and that sufficient reasons may be given 
to prove the connection alleged to be accidental 
and arbitrary. It is sufficient in the first instance 
to deny this supposed constant connection be- 
t-ween intellectual properties and systems of 
animal organization; and thus to take away 
entirely the foundation of the argument. 

Man is to be considered in two states, that of 
life, and that of death. In one he thinks, and in 
the other he ceases to think ; and yet for some 
time after death, in many cases, the organization 
of the human frame continues as perfect as 
before. All do not die of organic disease. 



Death by suffocation, and other causes, is often 
effected without any visible violence being done 
to the brain, or any other of the most delicate 
organs. This is a well-established fact ; for the 
most accurate anatomical observation is not able 
to discover, in such cases as we have referred to, 
the slightest organic derangement. The machine 
has been stopped, but the machine itself has 
suffered no injury; and from the period of 
death to the time when the matter of the body 
begins to submit to the laws of chemical decom- 
position, its organization is as perfect as during 
life. If an opponent replies, that organic vio- 
lence must have been, sustained, though it is in- 
discernible, he begs the question, and assumes 
that thought must depend upon organization, the 
very point in dispute. If, more modest, he says 
that the organs may have suffered, he can give 
no proof of it : appearances are all against him. 
And if he argues from the phenomenon of the 
connection of thought with organization, ground- 
ing himself upon what is visible to observation 
only, the argument is completely repulsed by an 
appeal in like manner to the fact, that the organi- 
zation of the animal frame can be often exhibited, 
visibly unimpaired by those causes which have 
produced death, and yet incapable of thought 
and intelligence. The conclusion therefore is, 
that mere organization cannot be the cause of 
intelligence, since it is plain that precisely the 
same state of the organs shall often be found 
before and after death ; and yet, without any 
violence having been done to them, in one mo- 
ment man shall be actually intelligent, and in the 
next incapable of a thought. So far, then, from 
the connection between mental phenomena and 
the arrangement of matter in the animal structure 
being "constant," the ground of the argument of 
Priestley and other materialists, it is often visibly 
broken ; for a perfect organization of the animal 
remains after perception has become extinct. 

In support of this argument, we may urge the 
representations of Scripture upon that class of 
materialists who have not proceeded to the full 
length of denying its authority. Adam was 
formed out of the dust of the earth, the organism 
of his frame was therefore complete, before he 
became "a living soul." God breathed into him 
"the breath of lives;" and whatever different 
persons may understand by that inspiration, it 
certainly was not an organizing operation. The 
man was first formed or organized, and then life 
was imparted. Before the animating breath was 
inspired, he was not intelligent, because he lived 
not; yet the organization was complete before 
either life or the power of perception was im- 
parted : thought did not arise out of his organic 
structure, as an effect from its cause. 



CH. II.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



197 



The doctrine that mere organization is the 
cause of perception, etc., being clearly untena- 
ble, we shall probably be told that the subject 
supposed in the argument is a living organized 
being. If so, then the proof that matter can 
think drawn from organization is given up, and 
another cause of the phenomenon of intelligence, 
is introduced. This is life, and the argument 
will be considerably altered. It will no longer 
be, as we have before quoted it from Dr. Priestley, 
"that the powers of sensation or perception and 
thought, never having been found but in con- 
junction with a certain organized system of 
matter, the conclusion is that they depend upon 
such a system ;" but that these powers not having 
been found but in conjunction with animal life, 
they depend upon that as their cause. 

What then is life, which is thus exhibited as 
the cause of intelligence, and as the proof that 
matter is capable of perception and thought? 
In its largest and commonly received sense, it is 
that inherent activity which distinguishes vege- 
table and animal bodies from the soils in which 
the former grow, and on which the latter tread. 
A vegetable is said to live, because it has motion 
within itself, and is capable of absorption, secre- 
tion, nutrition, growth, and the reproduction of 
its kind. With all this it exhibits no mental 
phenomena, no sensation, no consciousness, no 
volition, no reflection : in a word, it is utterly un- 
intelligent. We have here a proof then as satis- 
factory as our argument from organization, that 
life, at least life of any kind, is not the cause of 
intelligence, for in ten thousand instances we see . 
it existing in bodies to which it imparts no 
mental properties at all. 

If then it be said that the life intended as the 
cause of intelligence is not vegetable, but animal 
life, the next step in the inquiry is, in what the 
life of an animal differs from that of a vegetable ; 
and if we go into the camp of the enemy himself, 
we shall find him laying it down, that to animals 
a double life belongs, the organic and the animal, 
the former of which animals, and even man, has 
only in common with the vegetable. One modi- 
fication of life, says Bichat, (upon whose scheme 
our modern materialists have modelled their 
arguments,) is common to vegetables and ani- 
mals, the other peculiar to the latter. "Com- 
paro together two individuals, one taken from 
each of those kingdoms : one exists only within 
itself, has no other relations to external objects 
than those of nutrition; is born, grows, and 
.lies, attached to tho soil which received its 
n. The other joins to this internal life, which 
it possesses in a still higher degree, an external 
life, which establishes numerous relations between 
it and the neighboring objeots, unites its exist- 



ence to that of other beings, and draws it near 
to or removes it from them, according to its 
wants and fears." (Recherches sur la vie ~et la 
mort.) This is only in other words to say, that 
there is one kind of life in man which, as in the 
vegetable, is the cause of growth, circulation, 
assimilation, nutrition, excretion, and similar 
functions ; and another on which depend sensa- 
tion, the passions, will, memory, and other attri- 
butes which we attribute to spirit. We have 
gained then by this distinction another step in 
the argument. There is a life common to animals 
and to vegetables. Whether this be simple 
mechanism or something more, matters nothing 
to the conclusion : it confers neither sensation, 
nor volition, nor reason. That life in men, and 
in the inferior animals, which is common to them 
and to vegetables, called, by Bichat and his 
followers, organic life, is evidently not the cause 
of intelligence. 

What then is that higher species of life called 
animal life, on which we are told our mental 
powers depend ? And here the French material- 
ist, whose notions have been so readily adopted 
into our own schools of physiology, shall speak 
for himself. "The functions of the animal form 
two distinct classes. One of these consists of an 
habitual succession of assimilation and concre- 
tion, by which it is constantly transforming into 
its own substance the particles of other bodies, 
and then rejecting them when they have become 
useless. By the other he perceives surrounding 
objects : reflects on his sensations, performs 
voluntary motions under their influence, and 
generally communicates, by the voice, his pleas- 
ures or pains, his desires or fears." "The 
assembled functions of the second class form the 
animal life." 

This strange definition of life has been adopted 
by Lawrence, and other disciples of the French 
school of materialism ; but its absurdity as a 
definition is obvious, and could only have been 
adopted as a veil of words to hide a conclusion 
fatal to the favorite system. So far from being 
a definition of life, it is no more than a descrip- 
tion of the "functions" of a vital principle or 
power, whatever that power or principle may be. 
Function is a manner in which any power devel- 
opes itself, or as Lawrence, the disciple of 
Bichat, has properly expressed it, "a mode of 
action;" and to say that an assemblage of the 
modes in which any thing acts, is that which 
acts, or "forms" that which acts, is the greatest 
possible trifling ami folly. 

But Bichat is not the only one o\' modern 
materialists who refuse honestly to pursue the 

inquiry, "What is life?" when even affecting bo 
describe - or defend it. Cuvier, another great 



198 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



authority in the same school, at one time says, 
that be life what it may, it cannot "be what the 
vulgar suppose it, a particular principle. (Prin- 
cipe particulier. ) In another place he acknow- 
ledges that life can proceed only from life. (La 
vie nait que de la vie.) Then again he considers 
it an internal principle ; (un principe interieur 
d'entretien et de reparation ;) and last of all says, 
what Mr. Lawrence has since repeated verbatim, 
that life consists in the sum total of ail the func- 
tions. (II consiste dans 1' ensemble des functions qui 
servent a nourir le corps, c'est a dire la digestion, 
l'absorption, la circulation, etc.) Thus he makes 
life a cause which owes its existence to its own 
operations, and consequently a cause which, had 
it not operated to produce itself, had never ope- 
rated nor existed at all! [Vide Medical Review, 
Sept. 1822, Art. 1.) "It is truly pitiful," says 
a physiologist of other opinions, "to think of a 
man with so many endowments, natural and ac- 
quired, driven as if blindfold by the fashion of 
the times, a contemptible vanity, or some wretched 
inclination, endeavoring to support with all his 
energy the extravagant idea that the phenomena 
of design and intelligence displayed in the form 
and structure of his species might have been the 
effects of some impulse or motion, or of some 
group of functions, as digestion, circulation, 
respiration, etc., which have accidentally hap- 
pened to meet without any assignable cause to 
bring them together, to hold them together, or 
to direct them." [Dr. Barclay on Life and Or- 
ganization.) 

These and many other examples are in proof, 
that the cause of vital properties cannot — we do 
not say be explained — but cannot even be indi- 
cated on the material system ; and we are no 
nearer, for any thing which these physiologists 
say, to any satisfactory account of that life 
which is peculiar to animals, and which has been 
distinguished from the organic life that is com- 
mon to them and to vegetables. It is not the 
result of organization, for that "is no living 
principle, no active cause." "An organ is an 
instrument. Organization, therefore, is nothing 
more than a system of parts so constructed and 
arranged as to cooperate to one common purpose. 
It is an arrangement of instruments, and there 
must be something beyond to bring these instru- 
ments into action." — RennelVs Remarks on Skep- 
ticism. If life cannot therefore be organization 
or the effect of it, it is not that inherent, mecha- 
nical, and chemical motion which is called life in 
vegetables, and which the physiologists have 
decided to be the same kind of life which they 
call organic in animals ; for even the materialist 
acknowledges that to be a different species of 
life in animals, on which sensation, volition, and 



[part n. 

passion depend. What then is it ? It is not a 
material substance — in that all agree. It is not 
the material effect of the material cause, organi- 
zation: that has been shown to be absurd. It is 
not that mechanical and chemical inherent mo- 
tion which performs so many functions in vege- 
tables and in animals, so far as they have it in 
common with them ; for no sensation, or other 
mental phenomena, are allowed to result from 
these. It is therefore plainly no material cause, 
and no effect of matter at all; for no other hypo-" 
thesis remains but that which places its source 
in an immaterial subject, operating upon and by 
material organs. For, to quote from a writer 
just mentioned, "that there is some invisible 
agent in every living organized system, seems to 
be an inference to which we are led almost irre- 
sistibly. When we see an animal starting from 
its sleep, contrary to the known laws of gravita- 
tion, without an external or elastic impulse, 
without the appearance of electricity, galvanism, 
magnetism, or chemical attraction : when we see 
it afterward moving its limbs in various direc- 
tions with different degrees of force and velocity, 
sometimes suspending and sometimes renewing 
the same motions at the sound of a word or the 
sight of a shadow, can we refrain a moment from 
thinking that the cause of these phenomena is 
internal, that it is something different from the 
body, and that the several bodily organs are 
nothing more than the mere instruments which 
it employs in its operations ? Not instruments, 
indeed, that can be manufactured, purchased, or 
exchanged, or that can at pleasure be varied in 
form, position, number, proportion, or magni- 
tude: not instruments whose motions are depend- 
ent upon an external impulse, on gravity, 
elasticity, magnetism, galvanism, on electricity 
or chemical attraction; but instruments of a 
peculiar nature — instruments that grow, that are 
moved by the will, and which can be regulated 
and kept in repair by no agent but the one for 
which they were primarily destined : instruments 
so closely related to that agent, that they cannot 
be injured, handled or breathed upon, approached 
by cold, by wind, by rain, without exciting in it 
certain sensations of pleasure or of pain — sensa- 
tions which, if either unusual or excessive, are 
generally accompanied with joy or grief, hopes 
or alarms : instruments, in short, that exert so 
constant and powerful reaction on the agent that 
employs them, that they modify almost every 
phenomenon which it exhibits, and to such an 
extent, that no person can confidently say what 
would be the effect of its energies if deprived 
of instruments ; or what would be the effect of 
its energies if furnished with instruments of a 
different species, or if furnished with instruments 



CH. II.] 

of different materials, less dependent on external 
circumstances, and less subject to the laws of 
gross and inert matter." — Barclay on Life and 
Organization. 

Life, then, whether organic or animal, is not 
the cause of intelligence ; and thus all true 
reasoning upon these phenomena brings us to 
the philosophy of the Scriptures, that the pre- 
sence of an immaterial soul with the body is the 
source of animal life ; and that the separation 
of the soul from the body is that circumstance 
which causes death. 1 Further proofs, however, 
are not wanting, that matter is incapable of 
thought, and that its various qualities are incon- 
sistent with mental phenomena. 

"Extension is a universal quality of matter, 
being that cohesion and continuity of its parts 
by which a body occupies space. The idea of 
extension is gained by our external senses of 
sight and of touch. But thought is neither 
visible nor tangible : it occupies no external 
space — it has no contiguous or cohering parts. 
A mind enlarged by education and science, 
a memory stored with the richest treasures 
of varied knowledge, occupies no more space 
than that of the meanest and most illiterate 
rustic. 

"In body again we find a vis inertice, that is, 
a certain quality by which it resists any change 
in its present state. We know by experiment 
that a body, when it has received an impulse, 
will persevere in a direct course and a uniform 
velocity, until its motion shall be either disturbed 
or retarded by some external power ; and again, 
that being at rest, it will remain so for ever, 
unless motion shall have been communicated to 
it from without. Since matter, therefore, neces- 
sarily resists all change of its present state, its 
motion and its rest are purely passive : sponta- 
neous motion, therefore, must have some other 
origin. Nor is this spontaneous motion to be 
attributed to the simple powers of life, for we 
have seen that in the life of vegetation there is 
no spontaneous motion : the plant has no power 
either to remove itself out of the position in 

1 The celebrated Hunter, " in searching for the principle 
of life oa the supposition that it was something visible, 
fruitlessly enough looked for it in the blood, the chyle, the 
brain, the lungs, and other parts of the body; but not 
finding it in any of them exclusively, concluded that it 
must bo a consequence of the union of the whole, and 
depend upon organism, lint to this conclusion ho could 
fter observing that the composition of 
matter does Dot give life; and that a dead body may have 

:iii the composition it ever bad. Last of all, he draw the 

fcrue, or at leaBt i he candid i ilusion, that he km w nothing 

about the mutter.'' (Medico-Chirurgical Review, Sept. 1822.) 
This la the conclusion to which mere philosophy comes, 

and the onlj • at which li can arrive, till It stoops to 

believe that there is trne philosophj In the Scriptures. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



199 



which it is fixed, or even to accelerate or retard 
the motion which takes place within it. Nor has 
man himself, in a sleep perfectly sound, the 
power of locomotion any more than a plant, nor 
any command over the various active processes 
which are going on within his own body. But 
when he is awake, he will rise from his resting- 
place: if mere matter, whether living or dead, 
were concerned, he would have remained there 
like a plant or a stone for ever. He will walk 
forward — he will change his course — he will 
stop. Can matter, even though endowed with 
the life of vegetation, perform any such acts as 
these ? Here is motion, fairly begun without 
any external impulse, and stopped without any 
external obstacle. The activity of a plant, on 
the contrary, is neither spontaneous nor loco- 
motive : it is derived in regular succession from 
parent substances, and it can be stopped only by 
external obstacles, such as the disturbance of the 
organization. A mass, even of living matter, 
requires something beyond its own powers to 
overcome the vis inertice which still distinguishes 
it, and to produce active and spontaneous motion. 

"Hardness and impenetrability are qualities of 
matter ; but no one of common sense, without a 
very palpable metaphor, could ever consider them 
as the properties of thought. 

"There is another property of matter, which 
is, if possible, still more inconsistent with thought 
than any of the former — I mean its divisibility. 
Let us take any material substance, the brain, 
the heart, or any other body, which we would 
have endowed with thought, and inquire, Of what 
is this substance composed ? It is the aggregate 
of an indefinite number of separable and sepa- 
rate parts. Now the experience of what passes 
within our minds will inform us that unity is 
essential to a thinking being. That consciousness 
which establishes the one individual being, which 
every man knows himself to be, cannot, without 
a contradiction in terms, be separated or divided. 
No man can think in two separate places at the 
same time : nor, again, is his consciousness made 
up of a number of separate consciousnesses ; as 
the solidity, the color, and motion of the whole 
body is made up of the distinct solidities, colors, 
and motions of its parts. As a thinking and a 
conscious being, then, man must be essentially 
one. As a partaker of the life of vegetation, 
he is separable into ten thousand different parts. 
If then it is the brain of a man which is con- 
scious and thinks, his consciousness and thought 
must be made up of as many separate parts as 
there are particles in its material substance, which 
is contrary to common senso and experience. 
Whatever therefore, our thought maj be, or in 
Whatever it may reside, it is essentially indivisi- 



500 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



ble ; and, therefore, wholly inconsistent with the 
divisibility of a material substance. 

"From every quality, therefore, of matter, 
with which we are acquainted, we shall be war- 
ranted in concluding that, without a contradiction 
in terms, it cannot be pronounced capable of 
thought. A thinking substance may be combined 
with a stone, a tree, or an animal body ; but not 
one of the three can of itself become a thinking 
being." — Bunnell on Skepticism. 

" The notions we annex to the words matter 
and mind, as is well remarked by Dr. Eeid, are 
merely relative. If I am asked what I mean by 
matter, I can only explain myself by saying it 
is that which is extended, figured, colored, mov- 
able, hard or soft, rough or smooth, hot or cold : 
that is, I can define it in no other way than by 
enumerating its sensible qualities. It is not 
matter or body which I perceive by my senses ; 
but only extension, figure, color, and certain 
other qualities, which the constitution of my 
nature leads me to refer to something which is 
extended, figured, and colored. The case is pre- 
cisely similar with respect to mind. We are not 
immediately conscious of its existence, but we 
are conscious of sensation, thought, and volition: 
operations which imply the existence of some- 
thing which feels, thinks, and wills. Every man 
too is impressed with an irresistible conviction 
that all these sensations, thoughts, and volitions 
belong to one and the same being : to that being 
which he calls himself — a being which he is led, 
by the constitution of his nature, to consider as 
something distinct from his body, and as not 
liable to be impaired by the loss or mutilation of 
any of his organs. 

"From these considerations, it appears that 
we have the same evidence for the existence of 
mind that we have for the existence of body ; 
nay, if there be any difference between the two 
cases, that we have stronger evidence for it; 
inasmuch as the one is suggested to us by the 
subjects of our own consciousness, and the other 
merely by the objects of our perceptions." — 
Stewart's Essays. 

Further observations on the immateriality of 
the human soul will be adduced in their proper 
place. The reason why the preceding argument 
on this subject has been here introduced, is not 
only that the spirituality of the Divine nature 
might be established by proving that intelligence 
is not a material attribute, but to keep in view 
the connection between the spirituality of God, 
and that of man, who was made in his image ; 
and to show the relation which also exists be- 
tween the doctrine of the materialism of the 
human soul and absolute Atheism, and thus to 
hold out a warning against such speculations. 



There is no middle course in fact, though one 
may be affected. If we materialize man, we 
must materialize God, or, in other words, deny a 
First Cause, one of whose essential attributes is 
intelligence. It is then of little consequence 
what scheme of Atheism is adopted. On the 
other hand, if we allow spirituality to God, it 
follows as a necessary corollary that we must 
allow it to man. These doctrines stand or fall 
together. 

On a subject which arises out of the foregoing 
discussion, a single observation will be sufficient. 
It is granted that, on the premises laid down, 
not only must an immaterial principle be al- 
lowed to man, but to all animals possessed of 
volition ; and few, perhaps none, are found with- 
out this property. But, though this has often 
been urged as an objection, it can cost the be- 
liever in revelation nothing to admit it. It 
strengthens, and does not weaken, his argu- 
ment; and it is perfectly in accordance with 
Scripture, which speaks of "the spirit of the 
beast," as well as of " the spirit of man." Vastly, 
nay, we might say, infinitely different are they 
in the class and degree of their powers, though 
of the same spiritual essence; but they have 
both properties which cannot be attributed to 
matter. It does not, however, follow that they 
are immortal because they are immaterial. The 
truth is, that God only hath independent im- 
mortality, because he only is self-existent, and 
neither human nor brute souls are of necessity 
immortal. God hath given this privilege to 
man, not by a necessity of nature, which would 
be incompatible with dependence, but by his 
own will, and the continuance of his sustaining 
power. But he seems to have denied it to the 
inferior animals, and, according to the language 
of Scripture, "the spirit of the beast goeth down- 
ward." The doctrine of the natural immortality 
of man, will, however, be considered in its pro- 
per place. 



CHAPTER III. 

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD — ETERNITY, OMNIPOTENCE, 
UBIQUITY. 

From the Scriptures we have learned that 
there is one God, the Creator of all things, and 
consequently living and intelligent. The de- 
monstrations of this truth, which surround us in 
the works of nature, have been also adverted to. 
By the same sacred revelations we have, also, 
been taught that, as to the Divine essence, God 
is a Spirit; and in the further manifestations 



CH. III.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



201 



they have made of him we learn, that as all 
things were made by him, he was before all 
things : that their being is dependent, his independ- 
ent: that he is eminently Being, according to 
his own peculiar appellation "I am;" self-exist- 
ent and Eternal. In the Scripture doctrine of 
God, we, however, not only find it asserted that 
God had no beginning, but that he shall have no 
end. Eternity ad partem post is ascribed to him, 
for, in the most absolute sense, he hath "immor- 
tality ;" and he "only" hath it by virtue of the 
inherent perfection of his nature. It is this 
which completes those sublime and impressive 
views of the eternity of God, with which the 
revelation he has been pleased to make of him- 
self abounds. "From everlasting to everlasting 
thou art God. Of old hast thou laid the founda- 
tion of the earth ; and the heavens are the work 
of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt 
endure ; yea, all of them shall wax old like a 
garment : as a vesture shalt thou change them, 
and they shall be changed; but thou art the 
same, and thy years shall have no end." He 
"inhabiteth eternity," fills and occupies the 
whole round of boundless duration, and is "the 
first and the last." 

In these representations of the eternal exist- 
ence and absolute immortality of the Divine 
Being, something more than the mere idea of 
infinite duration is conveyed. No creature can, 
without contradiction, be supposed to have been 
from eternity ; but even a creature may be sup- 
posed to continue to exist for ever, in as strict a 
sense as God himself will continue to exist for 
ever. Its existence, however, being originally 
dependent and derived, must continue so. It is 
not, so to speak, in its nature to live, or it would 
never have been non-existent ; and what it has 
not from itself it has received, and must, through 
every moment of actual existence, receive from 
its Maker. But the very phrase in which the 
Scriptures speak of the eternity of God, sug- 
gests a meaning deeper than that of mere dura- 
tion. They contrast the stability of the Divino 
existence with the vanishing and changing na- 
ture of all his works, and represent them as 
reposing upon him for support, while he not only 
depends not upon any, but rests upon himself. 
Ho lives by virtue of his nature, and is essentially 
unchangeable. For to the nature of that which 
exists without cause, life must bo essential. In 
him who is "the fountain of lifo " thorc can bo 
no principlo of decay. There can bo no desire 
to cease to bo in him who is perfectly blessed, 
because of the unbounded excellence of his na- 
ture. To him, existenoe must bo the source of 
Infinite enjoyment, both iVom the contemplation 
of his own designs and the manifestation of his 



glory, purity, and benevolence, to the intelligent 
creatures he has made to know and to be beati- 
fied by such discoveries and benefits. No 
external power can control, or in any way affect, 
his felicity, his perfection, or his being. Such 
are the depths of glory and peculiarity into 
which the Divine eternity, as stated in the Scrip- 
tures, leads the wondering mind ; and of which 
the wisest of heathens, who ascribed immor- 
tality to one or to many gods, had no conception. 
They were ever fancying something out of God, 
as the cause of their immortal being : fate, or 
external necessity, or some similar and vague 
notion, which obscured, as to them, one of the 
peculiar glories of the " eternal power and God- 
head," who of and from his own essential nature 
is, and was, and shall be. 

Some apprehensions of this great truth are 
seen in the sayings of a few of the Greek 
sages, though much obscured by their other 
notions. Indeed, that appropriate name of 
God, so venerated among the Jews, the nomen 
tetragrammaton, which we render Jehovah, was 
known among the heathens to be the name under 
which the Jews worshipped the supreme God ; 
and "from this Divine name," says Parkhurst, 
sub voce, "the ancient Greeks had their Iov," 
in their invocation of the gods. 1 It expresses 

1 A curious instance of the transmission of this name, 
and one of the peculiarities of the Hebrew faith, even into 
China, is mentioned in the following extract of rt A Me- 
moir of Lao-tseu, a Chinese philosopher, who flourished in 
the sixth century before our era, and who professed the 
opinions ascribed to Plato and to Pythagoras." (By M. 
Abel Remusat.) — " The metaphysics of Lao-tseu have many 
other remarkable features, which I have endeavored to de- 
velop in my memoir, and which, for various reasons, I 
am obliged to pass over in silence. How, in fact, should I 
give an idea of those lofty abstractions, of those inextri- 
cable subtilties, in which the oriental imagination disports 
and goes astray? It will suffice to say here, that the 
opinions of the Chinese philosopher on the origin and con- 
stitution of the universe, have neither ridiculous fables 
nor offensive absurdities : that they bear the stamp of a 
noble and elevated mind ; and that, in the sublime reveries 
which distinguish them, they exhibit a striking and incon- 
testable conformity with the doctrine which was professed 
a littlo later by the schools of Pythagoras and Plato. Like 
the Pythagoreans and the Stoics, our author admits, as the 
Pirst Cause, Reason, an ineffable, uncreated Leing, that is 
tho type of the- universe, and has no type but itself. Like 
Pythagoras, ho takes human souls to be emanations of tho 
ethereal substance, which are reunited with it after death ; 
and, like Plato, he refuses to tho wicked the faculty of 
returning into tho bosom of the Universal Soul. Like 
Pythagoras, ho gives to tho first principles of things the 
namos of numbers, and his cosmogony is, in some degree, 
algebraical. lie attaches the chain o\' beings to thai which 
he calls One, then to 7V<>, then to Three, which have made 
ail things. The divino Plato, who had adopted this myste- 
rious dogma, soi ins to be afraid o( revealing it to tho pro- 
fane. Ho envelOpOS it in clouds in his famous loiter to the 

three friends : lie loaches it to Dionysius of Syracuse ; but 
by enigmas, as he Bays himself, lest his tablets falling into 
the hands of somo Stranger, they Should be read and un- 



202 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



not the attributes, but the essence of God, which 
was the reason why the Jews deemed it in- 
effable. The Septuagint translators preserved 
the same idea in the word Kvpioc, by which 
they translated it, from Kvpo, sum, I am. This 
word is said by critics not to be classically used 
to signify God, which would mark the pecu- 
liarity of this appellation in the Septuagint ver- 
sion more strongly, and convey something of the 
great idea of the self, or absolute existence ascribed 
to the Divine nature in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
to those of the heathen philosophers who met 
with that translation. That it could not be 
passed over unnoticed, we may gather from St. 
Hilary, who says, that before his conversion to 
Christianity, meeting with this appellation of God 
in the Pentateuch, he was struck with admira- 
ration, nothing being so proper to God as to be. 
Among the Jews, however, the import of this 
stupendous name was preserved unimpaired by 
metaphysical speculations. It was registered in 
their sacred books : from the fulness of its mean- 
ing the loftiest thoughts are seen to spring up 
in the minds of the prophets, which amplify 
with an awful and mysterious grandeur their 
descriptions of his peculiar glories, in contrast 
with the vain gods of the heathen, and with every 
actual existence, however exalted, in heaven 
and in earth. 

On this subject of the eternal duration of 
the Divine Being, many have held a metaphy- 
sical refinement. "The eternal existence of 
God," it is said, "is not to be considered as 
successive : the ideas we gain from time are not 
to be allowed in our conceptions of his duration. 
As he fills all space with his immensity, he fills 
all duration with his eternity; and with him 
eternity is nunc stans, a permanent now, inca- 
pable of the relations of past, present, and 
future." Such, certainly, is not the view given 
us of this mysterious subject in the Scriptures ; 
and if it should be said that they speak popular- 
ly, and are accommodated to the infirmity of the 
thoughts of the body of mankind, we may reply, 
that philosophy has not, with all its boasting 



derstood. Perhaps the recollection of the recent death of 
Socrates imposed this reserve upon him. Lao-tseu does 
not make use of these indirect ways; and what is most 
clear in his book is, that a Triune Being formed the uni- 
verse. To complete the singularity, he gives to his Being 
a Hebrew name hardly changed, the very name which in 
our book designates him, who was, and is, and shall be. 
This last circumstance confirms all that the tradition indi- 
cated of a journey to the west, and leaves no doubt of the 
origin of his doctrine. Probably he received it either 
from the Jews of the ten tribes, whom the conquest of 
Sulmanazan had just dispersed throughout Asia, or from 
the apostles of some Phenician sect, to which those philo- 
sophers also belonged, who were the masters and precur- 
sors of Pythagoras and Plato." 



of superior light, carried our views on this 
attribute of the Divine nature at all beyond the 
revelation ; and, in attempting it, has only 
obscured the conceptions of its disciples. "Fill- 
ing duration with his eternity" is a phrase 
without any meaning: "For how can any man 
conceive a permanent instant, which coexists 
with a perpetually flowing duration? One 
might as well apprehend a mathematical point 
coextended with a line, a surface, and all dimen- 
sions." (Abeknethy's Sermons.) As this notion 
has, however, been made the basis of some 
opinions, which will be remarked upon in their 
proper place, it may be proper briefly to ex- 
amine it. 

Whether we get our idea of time from the 
motion of bodies without us, or from the con- 
sciousness of the succession of our own ideas, or 
both, is not important to this inquiry. Time, 
in our conceptions, is divisible. The artificial 
divisions are years, months, days, minutes, 
seconds, etc. We can conceive of yet smaller 
portions of duration, and, whether we have given 
to them artificial names or not, we can conceive 
no otherwise of duration than continuance of 
being, estimated as to degree, by this artificial 
admeasurement, and therefore as substantial- 
ly answering to it. It is not denied that 
duration is something distinct from these its 
artificial measures ; yet of this every man's con- 
sciousness will assure him, that we can form no 
idea of duration except in this successive manner. 
But we are told that the eternity of God is 
a fixed eternal now, from which all ideas of suc- 
cession, of past and future, are to be excluded ; 
and we are called upon to conceive of eternal 
duration without reference to past or future, and 
to the exclusion of the idea of that flow under 
which we conceive of time. The proper abstract 
idea of duration is, however, simple continuance 
of being, without any reference to the exact 
degree or extent of it, because in no other way 
can it be equally applicable to all the substances 
of which it is the attribute. It may be finite 
or infinite, momentary or eternal, but that de- 
pends upon the substance of which it is the 
quality, and not upon its own nature. Our own 
observation and experience teach us how to 
apply it to ourselves. As to us, duration is de- 
pendent and finite ; as to God, it is infinite ; but 
in both cases the originality or dependence, the 
finity or infinity of it, arises not out of the nature 
of duration itself, but out of other qualities of 
the subjects respectively. 

Duration, then, as applied to God, is no more 
than an extension of the idea as applied to our- 
selves; and to exhort us to conceive of it as 
something essentially different, is to require us 



CH. III.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



203 



to conceive what is inconceivable. It is to 
demand of ns to think without ideas. Duration 
is continuance of existence : continuance of ex- 
istence is capable of being longer or shorter, 
and hence necessarily arises the idea of the suc- 
cession of the minutest points of duration into 
which we can conceive it divided. Beyond this 
the mind cannot go — it forms the idea of dura- 
tion no other way ; and if what we call duration 
be any thing different from this in God, it is 
not duration, properly so called, according to 
human ideas : it is something else, for which 
there is no name among men, because there is 
no idea; and, therefore, it is impossible to 
reason about it. As long as metaphysicians use 
the term, they must take the idea : if they spurn 
the idea, they have no right to the term, and 
ought at once to confess that they can go no 
farther. Dr. Cudworth defines infinity of dura- 
tion to be nothing else hut perfection, as including 
in it necessary existence and immutability. This, 
it is true, is as much a definition of the moon as 
of infinity of duration ; but it is valuable, as it 
shows that, in the view of this great man, though 
an advocate of the nunc stans, the standing now 
of eternity, we must abandon the term duration 
if we give up the only idea under which it can 
be conceived. 

It follows from this, therefore, that either we 
must apply the term duration to the Divine Being 
in the same sense in which we apply it to crea- 
tures, with the extension of the idea to a dura- 
tion which has no bounds and limits, or blot it out 
of our creeds, as a word to which our minds, 
with all the aid they may derive from the labors 
of metaphysicians, can attach no meaning. The 
only notion which has the appearance of an 
objection to this successive duration, as applied 
to him, appears wholly to arise from confounding 
two very distinct things : succession in the dura- 
tion, and change in the substance. Dr. Cudworth 
appears to have fallen into this error. He speaks 
of the duration of an imperfect nature as 
sliding from the present to the future, expect- 
ing something of itself which is not yet in 
being, and of a perfect nature being essentially 
immutable, having a permanent and unchanging 
duration, never losing any thing of itself once 
prcsont, nor yet running forward to meet some- 
thing of itself which is not yet in being. Now, 
though this is a good description of a pcrfectand 
Immutable nature, it is no description at all of 
an eternally enduring nature. Duration implies 
no Lobs in the substance of any being, nor addi- 
tion to it. A perfect nature never loses any 
tiling of itself, nor expects more of itself than 
is possessed; but ibis docs not arise from the 
attribute of its duration, however that attribute 



may be conceived of, but from its perfection and 
consequent immutability. These attributes do 
not flow from the duration, but the extent of the 
duration from them. The argument is clearly 
good for nothing, unless it could be proved that 
successive duration necessarily implies change 
in the nature ; but that is contradicted by the 
experience of finite beings — their natures are 
not at all determined by their duration, but their 
duration by their natures ; and they exist for 
a moment, or for ages, according to the nature 
which their Maker has impressed upon them. 
If it be said that at least successive duration 
imports that a being loses past duration, and 
expects the arrival of future existence, we reply, 
that this is no imperfection at all. Even finite 
creatures do not feel it to be an imperfection to 
have existed, and to look for continued and inter- 
minable being. It is true, with the past we lose 
knowledge and pleasure ; and expecting in all 
future periods increase of knowledge and happi- 
ness, we are reminded by that of our present 
imperfection; but this imperfection does not 
arise from our successive and flowing duration, 
and we never refer it to that. It is not the past 
which takes away our knowledge and pleasure ; 
nor future duration, simply considered, which 
will confer the increase of both. Our imperfec- 
tions arise out of the essential nature of our 
being, not out of the manner in which our being 
is continued. It is not the flow of our duration, 
but the flow of our natures which produces these 
effects. On the contrary, we think that the idea 
of our successive duration, that is, of continu- 
ance, is an excellency, and not a defect. Let all 
ideas of continuance be banished from the mind: 
let these be to us a nunc semper stans during the 
whole of our being, and we appear to gain no- 
thing — our pleasures surely are not diminished 
by the idea of long continuance being added to 
present enjoyment: that they have been, and 
still remain, and will continue, on the contrary, 
greatly heightens them. Without the idea of a 
flowing duration, we could have no such measure 
of the continuance of our pleasures, and this we 
should consider an abatement of our happiness. 
What is so obvious an excellency in the spirit of 
man, and in angelic natures, can never be 
thought an imperfection in God, when joined 
with a nature essentially perfect and immutable. 
But it may be said that eternal duration, con- 
sidered as successive, is only an artificial manner 
of measuring and oonceiving of duration: and 
is no more eternal duration itself than minutes 
and moments, the artificial measures of time, are 
time itself. Wcro this granted, the question 

would still be, Whether there is any thing in 
duration, considered generally, or iu ftmo, con- 



204 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



sidered specially, which, corresponds to these 
artificial methods of measuring and conceiving 
of them. The ocean is measured by leagues ; 
but the extension of the ocean, and the measure 
of it, are distinct. They, nevertheless, answer 
to each other. Leagues are the nominal divisions 
of an extended surface ; but there is a real ex- 
tension, which answers to the artificial concep- 
tion and admeasurement of it. In like manner, 
days, and hours, and moments are the measures 
of time ; but there is either something in time 
which answers to these measures, or not only 
the measure, but the thing itself, is artificial — an 
imaginary creation. If any man will contend 
that the period of duration which we call time is 
nothing, no further dispute can be held with him, 
and he may be left to deny also the existence of 
matter, and to enjoy his philosophic revel in an 
ideal world. We apply the same argument to 
duration generally, whether finite or infinite. 
Minutes and moments, or smaller portions, for 
which we have no name, may be artificial, 
adopted to aid our conceptions ; but conceptions 
of what? Not of any thing standing still, but 
of something going on. Of duration we have 
no other conception ; and if there be nothing in 
nature which answers to this conception, then is 
duration itself imaginary, and we discourse about 
nothing. If the duration of the Divine Being 
admits not of past, present, and future, one of 
these two consequences must follow — that no 
such attribute as that of eternity belongs to him, 
or, that there is no power in the human mind to 
conceive of it. In either case the Scriptures are 
greatly impugned; for, "He who is, and was, 
and is to come," is a revelation of the eternity of 
God, which is then in no sense true. It is not 
true if used literally ; and it is as little so if the 
language be figurative, for the figure rests on no 
basis, it illustrates nothing, it misleads. 

God is omnipotent. Of this attribute, also, 
we have the most ample revelation, and in the 
most impressive and sublime language. From 
the annunciation in the Scriptures of a Divine 
existence who was "in the beginning 7 ' before all 
things, the very first step is the display of his 
almighty power in the creation out of nothing, 
and the immediate arrangement in order and 
perfection, of the "heaven and the earth;" by 
which is meant not this globe only with its 
atmosphere, or even with its own celestial system, 
but the universe itself; for, "he made the stars 
also." "We are thus placed at once in the presence 
of an agent of unbounded power, "the strict and 
correct conclusion being, that a power which 
could create such a world as this, must be beyond 
all comparison greater than any which we ex- 
perience in ourselves, than any which we observe 



[PART II. 

in other visible agents, greater, also, than any 
which we can want for our individual protection 
and preservation, in the Being upon whom we 
depend: a power, likewise, to which we are 
not authorized by our observation or knowledge 
to assign any limits of space or duration." — 
Palet. 

That the sacred writers should so frequently 
dwell upon the omnipotence of God, has an 
important reason which arises out of the very 
design of that revelation which they were the 
instruments of communicating to mankind. Men 
were to be reminded of their obligations to obedi- 
ence, and God is, therefore, constantly exhibited 
as the Creator, the Preserver, and Lord of all 
things. His reverent worship and fear was to 
be enjoined upon them ; and by the manifesta- 
tion of his works the veil was withdrawn from 
his glory and majesty. Idolatry was to be 
checked and reproved, and the true God was 
thus placed in contrast with the limited and 
powerless gods of the heathen. "Among the 
gods there is none like unto thee, Lord; 
neither are there any works like unto thy 
works." Finally, he was to be exhibited as the 
object of trust to creatures, constantly reminded 
by experience of their own infirmity and depend- 
ence, and to whom it was essential to know 
that his power was absolute, unlimited, and 
irresistible. 

In the revelation which was thus designed to 
awe and control the bad, and to afford strength 
of mind and consolation to the good under all 
circumstances, the omnipotence of God is, there- 
fore, placed in a great variety of impressive 
views, and connected with the most striking 
illustrations. 

It is presented by the fact of creation, the 
creation of beings out of nothing, which itself, 
though it had been confined to a single object 
however minute, exceeds finite comprehension, 
and overwhelms the faculties. This with God 
required no effort — "He spake, and it was done: 
he commanded, and it stood fast." The vastness 
and variety of his works enlarge the conception. 
" The heavens declare the glory of God, and the 
firmament showeth his handy work." "He 
spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon 
the waves of the sea : he maketh Arcturus, Orion, 
and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south : he 
doeth great things, past finding out, yea, and 
wonders without number. He stretcheth out 
the north over the empty place, and hangeth the 
earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters 
in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent 
under them: he hath compassed the waters 
with bounds until the day and night come to an 
end." The ease with which he sustains, orders, 



CH. III.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



205 



and controls the most powerful and unruly of the 
elements, presents his omnipotence under an 
aspect of ineffable dignity and majesty. "By 
him all things consist." He brake up for the 
sea "a decreed place, and set bars and doors, and 
said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther, 
and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." 
"He looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth 
under the whole heaven, to make the weight for 
the winds, to weigh the waters by measure, to 
make a decree for the rain, and a way for the 
lightning of the thunder." "Who hath measured 
the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted 
out heaven with the span, comprehended the dust 
of the earth in a measure, and weighed the moun- 
tains in scales, and the hills in a balance?" 
The descriptions of the Divine power are often 
terrible. " The pillars of heaven tremble, and 
are astonished at his reproof: he divideth the 
sea with his power." " He remove th the moun- 
tains, and they know it not; he overturneth 
them in his anger: he shaketh the earth out of 
her place, and the pillars thereof tremble : he 
commandeth the sun and it riseth not, and seal- 
eth up the stars." The same absolute subjection 
of creatures to his dominion is seen among the 
intelligent inhabitants of the material universe, 
and angels, men the most exalted, and evil 
spirits, are swayed with as much ease as the 
least resistless elements. "He maketh his angels 
spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." They 
veil their faces before his throne, and acknow- 
ledge themselves his servants. "It is he that 
sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the 
inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers," "as 
the dust of the balance, less than nothing, and 
vanity." "He bringeth princes to nothing." 
" He putteth down one and setteth up another," 
u for the kingdom is the Lord's, and he is gover- 
nor among the nations." " The angels that 
sinned he cast down to hell, and delivered them 
into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto 
judgment." The closing scenes of this world 
complete these transcendent conceptions of the 
majesty and power of God. The dead of all 
ages shall rise from their graves at his voice ; and 
the sea shall give up the dead which are in it. 
Before his face heaven and earth flee away, the 
stars fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven 
taken. Tho dead, small and great, stand 
before God, and are divided as a shepherd divid- 
elh his sheep from the goats: the wicked go 
ftway into everlasting punishment, but the right- 
eous into life eternal. 

Of these amazing views of, the omnipotence of 
God, spread almost through every page of the 
Scripture, the power lies in their truth. They 
ure not, eastern exaggerations, mistaken for sub- 



limity. Every thing in nature answers to them, 
and renews from age to age the energy of the 
impression which they cannot but make upon 
the reflecting mind. The order of the astral 
revolutions indicates the constant presence of an 
invisible but incomprehensible power : the seas 
hurl the weight of their billows upon the rising 
shores, but everywhere find a "bound fixed by 
a perpetual decree:" the tides reach their 
height — if they flowed on for a few hours, the 
earth would change places with the bed of the 
sea — but under an invisible control they become 
refluent. "He toucheth the hills and they 
smoke," is not mere imagery. Every volcano is 
a testimony of that truth to nature which we find 
in the Scriptures ; and earthquakes teach that 
before him "the pillars of the world tremble." 
Men collected into armies, and populous nations, 
give us vast ideas of human power ; but let an 
army be placed amidst the sand-storms and 
burning winds of the desert, as, in the east, has 
frequently happened, or before "his cold," as 
in our own day, in Russia, where one of the 
mightiest armaments was seen retreating before 
or perishing under an unexpected visitation of 
snow and storm ; or let the utterly helpless state 
of a populous country which has been visited by 
famine, or by a resistless pestilential disease, be 
reflected upon, and it is no figure of speech to 
say, that "all nations are before him less than 
nothing, and vanity." 

Nor, in reviewing this doctrine of Scripture, 
ought the fine practical uses made of the om- 
nipotence of God, by the sacred writers, to be 
overlooked. In them there is nothing said for 
the display of knowledge, as, too often, in heathen 
writers : no speculation without a moral subser- 
vient to it, and that by evident design. To ex- 
cite and keep alive in man the fear and worship 
of God, and to bring him to a felicitous confi- 
dence in that almighty power which pervades 
and controls all things, we have observed, are 
the reasons for those ample displays of the om- 
nipotence of God, which roll through the sacred 
volume with a sublimity that inspiration only 
could supply. " Declare his glory among the 
heathen, his marvellous works among all na- 
tions ; for great is the Lord, and greatly to be 
praised. Glory and honor are in his presence, 
and strength and gladness in his place, (live 
unto the Lord, yo kindreds of tho people, give 
unto the Lord glory and strength : give unto the 
Lord tho glory due unto his name. The Lord is 
my light and my salvation: whom shall 1 tear? 
The Lord is tho strength of my life: of whom 
shall 1 be afraid? If God be \\>v \i<. who can 
bo against us? Our help is in tho name 
of the Lord, who made heaven and earth. 



206 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee." 
Thus, as one observes, "our natural fears, of 
which we must hare many, remit us to God, and 
remind us. since we know what God is, to lay 
hold on his almighty power." 

Ample, however, as are the views afforded us 
in Scripture of the power of God, we are not to 
consider the subject as bounded by them. As 
when the Scriptures declare the eternity of God, 
they declare it so as to unveil to us something 
of that fearful peculiarity of the Divine nature, 
that he is the fountain of being to himself, and 
that he is eternal, because he is the "I am," so 
we are taught not to measure his omnipotence 
by the actual displays of it which have been 
made. They are the manifestations of the prin- 
ciple, but not the measure of its capacity; and 
should we resort to the discoveries of modern 
philosophy, which, by the help of instruments, 
has so greatly enlarged the known boundaries 
of the visible universe, and add to the stars, 
visible to the naked eye, new exhibitions of the 
Divine power in those nebulous appearances of 
the heavens which are resolvable into myriads 
of distinct celestial luminaries, whose immense 
distances commingle their light before it reaches 
our eyes, we thus almost in f initely expand the 
circle of created existence, and enter upon a 
formerly unknown and overwhelming range of 
Divine operation; but we are still reminded that 
his power is truly almighty and measureless : , 
"Lo, these are parts of his ways, but how little 
a portion is known of him ; but the thunder 
of his power who can understand?" It is a 
mighty conception to think of a power from 
which all other power is derived, and to which 
it is subordinate ; which nothing can oppose ; ' 
which can beat down and annihilate all other 
powers whatever; a power which operates in 
the most perfect manner ; at once, in an instant, 
With the utmost ease ; but the Scriptures lead 
us to the contemplation of greater depths, and 
those unfathomable. The omnipotence of God j 
is inconceivable and boundless. It arises from | 
the infinite perfection of God, that his power can \ 
never be actually exhausted ; and in every im- ; 
aginable instant in eternity, that inexhaustible 
power of God can, if it please him, be adding 
either more creatures to those in existence, or 
greater perfection to them ; since '-'it belongs to 
self-existent being to be always full and com- 
municative, and to the communicated, contingent 
being, to be ever empty and craving." — Howe. 

One limitation only we can conceive, which 
however detracts nothing from this perfection of 
the Divine nature. 

"Where things in themselves imply a contra- ' 
diction, as that a body may be extended and not | 



extended, in a place and not in a place, at the 
same rime : such things, I say, cannot be done 
by God, because contradictions are impossible in 
their own nature ; nor is it any derogation from 
the Divine power to say, they cannot be done ; 
for as the object of the understanding, of the eye, 
and the ear, is that which is intelligible, visible, 
and audible, so the object of power must be 
that which is possible ; and as it is no prejudice 
to the most perfect understanding, or sight, or 
hearing, that it does not understand what is not 
intelligible, or see what is not visible, or hear 
what is not audible, so neither is it any diminu- 
tion to the most perfect power, that it does not 
do what is not possible. (Bishop WiHcins.) In like 
manner, God cannot do any thing that is repug- 
nant to his other perfections : he cannot lie, nor 
deceive, nor deny himself; for this would be 
injurious to his truth. He cannot love sin, nor 
punish innocence ; for this would destroy his 
holiness and goodness ; and therefore to ascribe 
a power to him that is inconsistent with the recti- 
tude of his nature, is not to magnify, but debase 
him ; for all unrighteousness is weakness, a de- 
fection from right reason, a deviation from the 
perfect rule of action, and arises from a defect 
of goodness and power. In a word, since all the 
attributes of God are essentially the same, a 
power in him which tends to destroy any other 
attribute of the Divine nature must be a power 
destructive of itself. Well therefore may we 
conclude him absolutely omnipotent, who, by 
being able to effect all things consistent with his 
perfections, showeth infinite ability, and, by not 
being able to do any thing repugnant to the same 
perfections, demonstrates himself subject to no 
infirmity." — Pearson on the Creed. 

Nothing certainly in the finest writings of an- 
tiquity, were all their best thoughts collected as 
to the majesty and power of God, can bear any 
comparison to the views thus presented to us by 
Divine revelation. Were we to forget for a mo- 
ment, what is the fact, that their noblest notions 
stand connected with fancies and vain specula- 
tions which deprive them of their force, their 
thought never rises so high, the current of it is 
broken, the round of lofty conception is not com- 
pleted ; and, unconnected as their views of Divine 
power were with the eternal destiny of man, and 
the very reason of creation, we never hear in 
them, as in the Scriptures, "the thunder of his 
power." One of the best specimens of heathen 
devotion is given below in the hymn of Cleanthes 
the Stoic ; and, though noble and just, it sinks 
infinitely in the comparison : — 

"Hail, Jupiter, most glorious of the im- 
mortals, invoked under many names, always most 
powerful, the first ruler of nature, whose law 



CH. III.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



207 



governs all things, — hail ! for to address thee is 
permitted to all mortals. For our race we have 
from thee: we mortals who creep upon the 
ground, receiving only the echo of thy voice. I 
therefore, I will celebrate thee, and will always 
sing thy power. All this universe rolling round 
the earth, obeys thee wherever thou guidest, and 
willingly is governed by thee. So vehement, so 
fiery, so immortal is the thunder which thou 
holdest subservient in thy unshaken hands ; for, 
by the stroke of this, all nature was rooted : 
by this, thou directest the common reason which 
pervades all things, mixed with the greater and 
lesser luminaries: so great a king art thou, 
supreme through all; nor does any work take 
place without thee on the earth, nor in the 
ethereal sky, nor in the sea, except what the bad 
perform in their own folly. But do thou, 
Jupiter, giver of all blessings, dwelling in the 
clouds, ruler of the thunder, defend mortals 
from dismal misfortune : which dispel, Father, 
from the soul, and grant it to attain that judg- 
ment, trusting to which thou governest all things 
with justice : that, being honored, we may repay 
thee with honor, singing continually thy works, 
as becomes a mortal : since there is no greater 
meed to men or gods, than always to celebrate 
justly the universal law." 

The Omnipresence or Ubiquity of God is an- 
other doctrine of Scripture ; and it is corroborated 
by facts obvious to all reflecting beings, though 
to us, and perhaps to all finite minds, the mode 
is incomprehensible. The statement of this doc- 
trine in the inspired records, like that of all the 
other attributes of God, is made in their own 
peculiar tone and emphasis of majesty and sub- 
limity. "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or 
whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I 
ascend up into heaven, thou art there : if I make 
my bed in hell, behold thou art there : if I take 
the wings of the morning, and dwell in the utter- 
most parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand 
lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. — Can 
any hide himself in secret places that I shall not 
see him ? Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith 
the Lord ? Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, 
and not a God afar off? — Thus saith the Lord, 
The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my 
footstool. — Behold, the heaven and heaven of 
heavens cannot contain thee. — Though they dig 
into hell, thence shall my hand take them: though 
they climb up into heaven, thence will I bring 
them down; and though they hide themselves in 
the top of Carmel, I will scarch.and take them out 
thence. — In him we live, and move, and have our 
being. — Ho filloth all things." 

Some striking passages on the ubiquity of the 
Divine presence may bo found in the writings of 



some of the Greek philosophers, arising out of 
this notion that God was the soul of the world ; 
but their very connection with this speculation, 
notwithstanding the imposing phrase occasionally 
adopted, strikingly marks the difference between 
their most exalted views and those of the Hebrew 
prophets on this subject. "To a large proportion 
of those who hold a distinguished rank among 
the ancient theistical philosophers, the idea of 
the personality of the Deity was in a great 
measure unknown. The Deity by them was con- 
sidered not so much an intelligent being as an 
animating power, diffused throughout the world, 
and was introduced into their speculative system 
to account for the motion of that passive mass 
of matter, which was supposed coeval, and indeed 
coexistent with himself." (Sumner's Records of 
the Creation.) These defective notions are con- 
fessed by Gibbon, a writer not disposed to under- 
value their attainments. 

"The philosophers of Greece deduced their 
morals from the nature of man, rather than from 
that of God. They meditated, however, on the 
Divine nature, as a very curious and important 
speculation ; and in the profound inquiry, they 
displayed the strength and weakness of the human 
understanding. Of the four most considerable 
sects, the Stoics and the Platonicians endeavored 
to reconcile the jarring interests of reason and 
piety. They have left us the most sublime proofs 
of the existence and perfections of the First 
Cause ; but as it was impossible for them to con- 
ceive the creation of matter, the workman, in 
the Stoic philosophy, was not sufficiently dis- 
tinguished from the work ; while, on the contrary, 
the spiritual God of Plato and his disciples 
resembled more an idea than a substance." — 
Decline and Fall, etc. 

Similar errors have been revived in the infidel 
philosophy of modern time, from Spinoza down 
to the latter offspring of the German and French 
schools. The same remark applies also to the 
oriental philosophy, which, as before remarked, 
presents at this day a perfect view of the boasted 
wisdom of ancient Greece, which was "brought 
to naught", by "the foolishness" of apostolic 
preaching. But in the Scriptures there is nothing 
confused in the doctrine of the Divine ubiquity. 
God is everywhere, but he is not every thing. 
All things have their being in him, but ho is dis- 
tinct from all things: he fills the universe, but is 
not mingled with it. He is the Intelligence whiofa 
guides, and the power which sustains, but Ins 
personality is preserved, and lie is independent 
of the works of his hands, however vast and 
noble. So far is his presence from being bounded 
by the universe itself, that, as in the passage 
abovo quoted from the Psalms, Ave are taught 



208 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



that were it possible for us to wing our way into 
the immeasurable depths and breadths of space, 
God would there surround us, in as absolute a 
sense as that in which he is said to be about our 
bed and our path in that part of the world where 
his will has placed us. 

On this as on all similar subjects, the Scrip- 
tures use terms which are taken in their common- 
sense acceptation among mankind ; and though 
the vanity of the human mind disposes many to 
seek a philosophy in the doctrine thus announced 
deeper than that which its popular terms convey, 
we are bound to conclude, if we would pay but a 
common respect to an admitted revelation, that 
where no manifest figure of speech occurs, the 
truth of the doctrine lies in the tenor of the 
terms by which it is expressed. Otherwise there 
would be no revelation, I do not say, of the modus, 
for that is confessedly incomprehensible, but of 
the fact. In the case before us, the terms 
presence, and place, are used according to common 
notions, and must be so taken, if the Scriptures 
are intelligible. Metaphysical refinements are 
not scriptural doctrines, when they give to the 
terms chosen by the Holy Spirit an acceptation 
out of their general and proper use, and make 
them the signs of a perfectly distinct class of 
ideas ; if indeed all distinctness of idea is not 
lost in the attempt. It is therefore in the popu- 
lar, and just because scriptural, manner, that we 
are to conceive of the omnipresence of God. 

"If we reflect upon ourselves, we may observe 
that we fill but a small space, and that our know- 
ledge or power reaches but a little way. TVe can 
act at one time in one place only, and the sphere 
of our influence is narrow at largest. Would we 
be witnesses to what is done at any distance from 
us, or exert there our active powers, we must 
remove ourselves thither. For this reason we 
are necessarily ignorant of a thousand things 
which pass around us, incapable of attending and 
managing any great variety of affairs, or per- 
forming at the same time any number of actions, 
for our own good, or for the benefit of others. 

"Although we feel this to be the present con- 
dition of our being, and the limited state of our 
intelligent and active powers, yet we can easily 
conceive there may exist beings more perfect, 
and whose presence may extend far and wide : 
any one of whom present in, what to us are, 
various places, at the same time, may know at 
once what is done in all these, and act in all of 
them ; and thus be able to regard and direct a 
variety of affairs at the same instant ; and who 
further being qualified, by the purity and activity 
of their nature, to pass from one place to another 
with great ease and swiftness, may thus fill a 
large sphere of action, direct a great variety of 



[PART II. 

affairs, confer a great number of benefits, and 
observe a multitude of actions at the same time, 
or in so swift a succession as to us would appear 
but one instant. Thus perfect we may easily 
believe the angels of God. 

"We can further conceive this extent of pre- 
sence, and of ability for knowledge and action, 
to admit of degrees of ascending perfection ap- 
proaching to infinite. And when we have thus 
raised our thoughts to the idea of a Being who is 
not only present throughout a large empire, but 
throughout our world; and not only in every 
part of our world, but in every part of all the 
numberless suns and worlds which roll in the 
starry heavens — who is not only able to enliven 
and actuate the plants, animals, and men who 
live upon this globe, but countless varieties of 
creatures everywhere in an immense universe — 
yea, whose presence is not confined to the uni- 
verse, immeasurable as that is by any finite mind, 
but who is present everywhere in infinite space ; 
and who is therefore able to create still new 
worlds and fill them with proper inhabitants, 
attend, supply, and govern them all — when we 
have thus gradually raised and enlarged our con- 
ceptions, we have the best idea we can form of 
the universal presence of the great Jehovah, who 
filleth heaven and earth. There is no part of the 
universe, no portion of space uninhabited by 
God, none wherein this Being of perfect power, 
wisdom, and benevolence is not essentially pre- 
sent. Could we with the swiftness of a sunbeam 
dart ourselves beyond the limits of the creation, 
and for ages continue our progress in infinite 
space, we should still be surrounded with the 
Divine presence ; nor ever be able to reach that 
space where God is not. 

"His presence also penetrates every part of 
our world: the most solid parts of the earth 
cannot exclude it; for it pierces as easily the 
centre of the globe, as the empty air. All crea- 
tures live and move and have their being in him. 
And the inmost recesses of the human heart can 
no more exclude his presence, or conceal a 
thought from his knowledge, than the deepest 
caverns of the earth." — Amoet's Sermons. 

The illustrations and confirmatory proofs of 
this doctrine which the material world furnishes, 
are numerous and striking. 

" It is a most evident and acknowledged truth 
that a being cannot act where it is not : if there- 
fore actions and effects, which manifest the 
highest wisdom, power, and goodness in the 
author of them, are continually produced every- 
where, the author of these actions, or God, must 
be continually present with us, and wherever he 
thus acts. The matter which composes the world 
is evidently lifeless and thoughtless: it must, 



CH. III.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



209 



therefore, be incapable of moving itself, or de- 
signing or producing any effects which require 
•wisdom or power. The matter of our world, or 
the small parts which constitute the air, the 
earth, and the waters, is yet continually moved, 
so as to produce effects of this kind : such are 
the innumerable herbs, and trees, and fruits 
which adorn the earth, and support the count- 
less millions of creatures who inhabit it. There 
must, therefore, be constantly present, all over 
the earth, a most wise, mighty, and good Being, 
the author and director of these motions. 

" We cannot, it is true, see him with our bodily 
eyes, because he is a pure Spirit ; yet this is not 
any proof that he is not present. A judicious 
discourse, a series of kind actions, convince 
us of the presence of a friend, a person of pru- 
dence and benevolence. We cannot see the pre- 
sent mind, the seat and principle of these quali- 
ties; yet the constant regular motion of the 
tongue, the hand, and the whole body, (which 
are the instruments of our souls, as the material 
universe and all the various bodies in it are the 
instruments of the Deity, ) will not suffer us to 
doubt that there is an intelligent and benevolent 
principle within the body which produces all 
these skilful motions and kind actions. The sun, 
the air, the earth, and the waters, are no more 
able to move themselves, and produce all that 
beautiful and useful variety of plants, and fruits, 
and trees, with which our earth is covered, than 
the body of a man, when the soul hath left it, is 
able to move itself, form an instrument, plough 
a field, or build a house. If the laying out judi- 
ciously and well cultivating a small estate, sow- 
ing it with proper grain at the best time of the 
year, watering it in due season and quantities, 
and gathering in the fruits when ripe, and laying 
them up in the best manner — if all these effects 
prove the estate to have a manager, and the 
manager possessed of skill and strength, cer- 
tainly the enlightening and warming the whole 
earth by the sun, and so directing its motion and 
the motion of the earth as to produce in a con- 
stant useful succession day and night, summer 
and winter, seed-time and harvest : the watering 
the earth continually by the clouds, and thus 
bringing forth immense quantities of herbage, 
grain, and fruits — certainly all these effects, con- 
tinually produced, must prove that a Being of 
the greatest power, wisdom, and benevolence is 
continually present throughout our world, which 
lie thus supports, moves, actuates, and makes 
fruitful. 

" The firo which warms us knows nothing of 

its serviceableness to this purpose, nor of the 

wise laws according to which its particles are 

moved to produce this effect. And that it is \ 

U 



placed in such a part of the house where it may 
be greatly beneficial, and no way hurtful, is 
ascribed without hesitation to the contrivance 
and labor of a person who knew its proper place 
and uses. And if we came daily into a house 
wherein we saw this was regularly done, though 
we never saw an inhabitant therein, we could 
not doubt that the house was occupied by a 
rational inhabitant. That huge globe of fire in 
the heavens which we call the sun, and on the 
light and influences of which the fertility of our 
world and the life and pleasure of all animals 
depend, knows nothing of its serviceableness to 
these purposes, nor of the wise laws according 
to which its beams are dispensed; nor what 
place or motions were requisite for these bene- 
ficial purposes. Yet its beams are darted con- 
stantly in infinite numbers, every one according 
to those well-chosen laws ; and its proper place 
and motion are maintained. Must not then its 
place be appointed, its motion regulated, and 
beams darted, by almighty wisdom and goodness, 
which prevent the sun's ever wandering in the 
boundless spaces of the heavens, so as to leave 
us in disconsolate cold and darkness ? or coming 
so near, or emitting his rays in such a manner, 
as to burn us up ? Must not the great Being 
who enlightens and warms us by the sun, his 
instrument, who raises and sends down the 
vapors, brings forth and ripens the grain and 
fruits, and who is thus ever acting around us for 
our benefit, be always present in the sun, 
throughout the air, and all over the earth, which 
he thus moves and actuates ? 

" This earth is in itself a dead, motionless 
mass, and void of all counsel ; yet proper parts 
of it are continually raised through the small 
pipes which compose the bodies of plants and 
trees, and are made to contribute to their growth, 
to open and shine in blossoms and leaves, and to 
swell and harden into fruit. Could blind, thought- 
less particles thus continually keep on their way, 
through numberless windings, without once blun~ 
dering, if they were not guided by an unerring 
hand ? Can the most perfect human skill from 
earth and water form one grain, much more a 
variety of beautiful and relishing fruits ? Must 
not the directing Mind who does all this con- 
stantly, be most wise, mighty, and benevolent? 
Must not the Being who thus continually exerts 
his skill and energy around us for our benefit, bo 
confessed to be always present, and concerned 
for our welfare ? 

"Can these effects be ascribed to anything 
bolow an all-wise and almighty Cause? And 
must not this Causo bo present wherever he aots? 
Wore God to speak to us every month from hea- 
ven, and, with a voice loud as thunder, declare 



210 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



that lie observes, provides for, and governs ns, 
this would not be a proof, in the judgment of 
Bound reason, by many degrees so valid. Since 
much less wisdom and power are required to 
form such sounds in the air, than to produce 
these effects ; and to give not merely verbal 
declarations, but substantial evidences of his 
presence and care over us." — Amort' s Sermons. 
'•In every part and place of the universe with 
which we are acquainted, we perceive the exer- 
tion of a power which we believe, mediately or 
immediately, to proceed from the Deity. For 
instance : In what part or point of space, that 
has ever been explored, do we not discover 
attraction? In what regions do we not find 
light ? In what accessible portion of our globe 
do we not meet with gravity, magnetism, elec- 
tricity : together with the properties also and 
powers of organized substances, of vegetable or 
of animated nature ? Nay, further, we may ask, 
What kingdom is there of nature, what corner 
of space, in which there is any thing that can 
be examined by us, where we do not fall upon 
contrivance and design? The only reflection, 
perhaps, which arises in our minds from this 
view of the world around us, is that the laws of 
nature everywhere prevail : that they are uniform 
and universal. But what do we mean by the 
laws of nature, or by any law ? Effects are pro- 
duced by power, not by laws. A law cannot 
execute itself. A law refers us to an agent." — 

PALEY. 

The usual argument d. priori, on this attribute 
of the Divine nature, has been stated as follows ; 
but amidst so much demonstration of a much 
higher kind, it cannot be of much value. 

"The First Cause, the supreme all-perfect 
Mind, as he could not derive his being from any 
other cause, must be independent of all other, 
and therefore unlimited. He exists by an abso- 
lute necessity of nature ; and as all the parts of 
infinite space are exactly uniform and alike, for 
the same reason that he exists in any one part, 
he must exist in all. No reason can be assigned 
for excluding him from one part, which would 
not exclude him from all. But that he is present 
in some parts of space, the evident effects of his 
wisdom, power, and benevolence, continually 
produced, demonstrate beyond all rational doubt. 
He must therefore be alike present everywhere, 
and fill infinite space with his infinite being." — 
Amort. 

Among metaphysicians, it has been matter of 
dispute whether God is present everywhere by 
an infinite extension of his essence. This is the 
opinion of Newton, Dr. S. Clarke, and their fol- 
lowers : others have objected to this notion, that 
it miffht then be said God is neither in heaven 



! nor in earth, but only a part of God in each. 
The former opinion, however, appears most in 
harmony with the Scriptures ; though the term 
extension, through the inadequacy of language, 
conveys too material an idea. The objection just 
stated is wholly grounded on notions taken from 
material objects, and is therefore of little weight, 
because it is not applicable to an immaterial 
substance. It is best to confess, with one who 
had thought deeply on the subject, "there is an 
incomprehensibleness in the manner of every 
thing, about which no controversy can or ought 
to be concerned." 1 That we cannot comprehend 
how God is fully, and completely, and undividedly 
present everywhere, need not surprise us, when 
we reflect that the manner in which our own 
minds are present with our bodies is as incom- 
prehensible as the manner in which the supreme 
mind is present with every thing in the universe. 



-«•* 



CHAPTER IY. 

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD OMNISCIENCE. 

The omniscience of God is constantly con- 
nected in Scripture with his omnipresence, and 
forms a part of almost every description of that 
attribute ; for, as God is a Spirit, and therefore 
intelligent, if he is everywhere, if nothing can 
: exclude him, not even the most solid bodies, nor 
| the minds of intelligent beings, then are all 
things "naked and opened unto the eyes of him 
with whom we have to do." "Where he acts, he 
j is, and where he is, he perceives." "He under- 
stands and considers things absolutely, and as 
i they are in their own natures, powers, proper- 
! ties, differences, together with all the circum- 
: stances belonging to them." (Bishop Wilkixs's 
Principles.) " Ejiown unto him are all his 
1 works from the beginning of the world;" rather 
a -' aluvoc, from all eternity — known, before they 
were made, in their possible, and known, now 
they are made, in their actual existence. "Lord, 
thou hast searched me and known me: thou 
knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising: 
thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou 
compassest my path and my lying down, and art 
acquainted with all my ways. For there is not 
a word in my tongue, but lo, Lord, thou know- 
est it altogether. — The darkness hideth not from 
thee; but the night shineth as the day. — The 
ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, 



i Jackson's Existence and Unity, etc. Vide also Watts'* 
i Philosophical Essays, and Law's Inquiry into the Ideas of 
. Space, etc. 



CH. 



IV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



211 



and he pondereth all his goings : he searcheth 
all hearts, and understandeth all the imagina- 
tions of the thoughts." Nor is this perfect 
knowledge to be confined to men or angels : it 
reaches into the state of the dead, and penetrates 
the regions of the damned. " Hell, hades, is 
naked before him ; and destruction (the seats of 
destruction) hath no covering." No limits at all 
are to be set to this perfection. " Great is our 
Lord, his understanding is infinite." 

In Psalm xciv. the knowledge of God is ar- 
gued from the communication of it to men. 
" Understand, ye brutish among the people ; 
and, ye fools, when will ye be wise ? He that 
planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that 
formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chas- 
tiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? He 
that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he 
know?" This argument is as easy as it is con- 
clusive, obliging all who acknowledge a First 
Cause to admit his perfect intelligence, or to 
take refuge in Atheism itself. It fetches not the 
proof from a distance, but refers us to our 
bosoms for the constant demonstration that the 
Lord is a God of knowledge, and that by him 
actions are weighed. 

"We find in ourselves such qualities as thought 
and intelligence, power and freedom, etc., for 
which we have the evidence of consciousness as 
much as for our own existence. Indeed, it is 
only by our consciousness of these that our ex- 
istence is known to ourselves. We know, like- 
wise, that these are perfections, and that to have 
them is better than to be without them. We 
find, also, that they have not been in us from 
eternity. They must, therefore, have had a 
beginning, and, consequently, some cause, for 
the very same reason that a being beginning to 
exist in time requires a cause. Now this cause, 
as it must be superior to its effect, must have 
those perfections in a superior degree ; and if it 
be the first cause, it must have them in an infi- 
nite or unlimited degree, since bounds or limita- 
tion, without a limiter, would be an effect with- 
out a cause." 

"If God gives wisdom to the wise, and know- 
ledge to men of understanding : if he communi- 
cates this perfection to his creatures, the infer- 
ence must be that he himself is possessed of it 
in a much more eminent degree than they : that 
Ms knowledge is deep and intimate, reaching to 
the very essence of things, theirs but slight and 
superficial : his clear and distinct, theirs con- 
fused and dark : his certain and infallible, theirs 
doubtful and liable to mistako: his easy and 
permanent, theirs obtained with much pains, and 
soon lost again by the defects of memory or age: 
his universal and extending to all objects, theirs 



short and narrow, reaching only to some few 
things, while that which is wanting cannot be 
numbered ; and, therefore, as the heavens are 
higher than the earth, so, as the prophet has 
told us, are his ways above their ways, and his 
thoughts above their thoughts." — Tillotson's 

I Sermons. 

But His understanding is infinite : a doctrine 
which the sacred writers not only authoritatively 
announce, but confirm by referring to the wisdom 
displayed in his works. The only difference be- 
tween wisdom and knowledge is, that the former 
always supposes action, and action directed to 
an end. But wherever there is wisdom, there 
must be knowledge ; and as the wisdom of God 
in the creation consists in the formation of things 
which, by themselves, or in combination with 
others, shall produce certain effects, and that in 
a variety of operation which is to us boundless, 
the previous knowledge of the possible qualities 
and effects inevitably supposes a knowledge 
which can have no limit. For as creation out 
of nothing argues a power which is omnipotent, 
so the knowledge of the possibilities of things 
which are not, a knowledge which, from the 
effect, we are sure must exist in God, argues 
that such a Being must be omniscient. For " all 
things being not only present to him, but, also, 
entirely depending upon him, and having re- 
ceived both their being itself and all their powers 
and faculties from him, it is manifest that, as he 
knows all things that are, so he must, likewise, 
know all possibilities of things, that is, all effects 
that can be. For, being himself alone self-exist- 
ent, and having alone given to all things all the 
powers and faculties they are endued with, it is 
evident he must of necessity know perfectly 
what all and each of those powers and faculties, 
which are derived wholly from himself, can pos- 
sibly produce ; and seeing, at one boundless 
view, all the possible compositions and divisions, 
variations and changes, circumstances and de- 
pendencies of things, all their possible relations 
one to another, and their dispositions or fitnesses 
to certain and respective ends, he must, without 
possibility of error, know exactly what is best 

| and properest in every one of the infinite possi- 
ble cases or methods of disposing things ; and 
understand perfectly how to order and direct the 
respective means, to bring about what he so 

j knows to be, in its kind, or in the whole, the 

: best and fittest in the end. This is what we 
mean by infinite wisdom." 

On the subject of tho Divine ubiquity and 
omniscience, many fine sentiments are found, 
even among pagans ; for an intelligent First 
Cause being in any sense admitted, it was most 
natural and obvious to ascribe to him a perfect 



212 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



knowledge of all things. They acknowledged 
' • that nothing is hid from God, who is intimate 
to our minds, and mingles himself with onr very 
thoughts;" 1 nor were they all unaware of the 
practical tendency of such a doctrine, and of the 
motive it affords to a cautious and virtuous con- 
duct. 2 But among them it was not held, as 
by the sacred writers, in connection with other 
correct views of the Divine nature, which are 
essential to give to this its full moral effect. 
Not only on this subject does the manner in 
which the Scriptures state this doctrine far 
transcend that of the wisest pagan Theists, but 
the moral of the sentiment is infinitely more 
comprehensive and impressive. "With them it is 
connected with man's state of trial: with a 
holy law, all the violations of which, in thought, 
word, and deed, are both infallibly known, and 
strictly marked : with promises of grace ; and 
of mild and protecting government, as to all 
who have sought and found the mercy of God, 
forgiving their sins and admitting them into his 
family. The wicked are thus reminded that 
their hearts are searched, and their sins noted; 
that the eyes of the Lord are upon their ways ; 
and that their most secret works will be brought 
to light in the day when God the witness shall 
become God the Judge. In like manner, "the 
eyes of the Lord are" said to be " over the right- 
eous ;" that such persons are kept by him "who 
never slumbers nor sleeps;" that he is never 
"far from them," and that "his eyes run to 
and fro throughout the whole earth, to show 
himself strong in their behalf;" that foes, to 
them invisible, are seen by his eye, and con- 
trolled by his arm ; and that this great attribute, 
so appalling to wicked men, affords to them, not 
only the most influential reason for a perfectly 
holy temper and conduct, but the strongest 
motive to trust, and joy, and hope, amidst the 
changes and afflictions of the present life. 
Socrates, as well as other philosophers, could 
express themselves well, so long as they ex- 
pressed themselves generally, on this subject. 
The former could say, "Let your own frame 
instruct you. Does the mind inhabiting your 
body dispose and govern it with ease ? Ought 
you not then to conclude, that the universal 
mind with equal ease actuates and governs uni- 
versal nature ; and that, when you can at once 
consider the interests of the Athenians at home, 
in Egypt, and in Sicily, it is not too much for 
the Divine wisdom to take care of the universe ? 
These reflections will soon convince you that 

i Nihil Deo clausum, interest animis nostris, et mediis 
co^itntionibus intervenit. — Sen. Epist. 
2 Quis enim non timeat Deum, omnia pervidentem, et 
ntem, etc. — Cic. De Nat. Dcor. 



the greatness of the Divine mind is such, as at 
once to see all things, hear all things, be present 
everywhere, and direct all the affairs of the 
world." These views are just ; but they wanted 
that connection with others, relative both to the 
Divine nature and government, which we see 
only in the Bible, to render them influential: 
they neither gave correct moral distinctions nor 
led to a virtuous practice, no, not in Socrates, 
who on some subjects, and especially on the^er- 
sonality of the Deity, and his independence on 
matter, raised himself far above the rest of his 
philosophic brethren, but in moral feeling and 
practice was as censurable as they. 3 

The foreknowledge of God, or his prescience 
of future things, though contingent, is by divines 
generally included in the term omniscience ; and 
for this they have unquestionably the authority 
of the Holy Scriptures. From the difficulty 
which has been supposed to exist, in reconciling 
this with the freedom of human actions, and 
man's accountability, some have however refused 
to allow prescience, at least of contingent actions, 
to be a property of the Divine nature ; and others 
have adopted various modifications of opinion, 
as to the knowledge of God, in order to elude or 

■ to remove the objection. This subject was glanced 
| at in Part I. , chap. ix. ; but in this place, where the 
| omniscience of God is under consideration, the 

■ three leading theories, which have been resorted 
J to for the purpose of maintaining unimpugned 

3 Several parallels have been at different times drawn, 
even by Christian divines, between the character of 
Socrates and Christ, doubtless with the intention of exalt- 
ing the latter, but yet so as to veil the true character of 
the former. How great is the disgust one feels at that 
want of all moral delicacy from which only such com- 
parisons could emanate, when the true character of Socrates 
j comes to be unveiled! On a sermon preached at Cam- 
| bridge by Dr. Butler, which contains one of these parallels, 
| the "Christian Observer' has the following just remarks: 
"We earnestly request that such of our readers as are 
sufficiently acquainted with classical literature to institute 
the examination, would turn to the eleventh chapter of 
the third book of the Memorabilia of Xenophon, and we 
are persuaded that they will not think our reprehension 
\ of Dr. Butler misplaced. The very title of the chapter, we 
should have thought, would have precluded any Christian 
scholar, much more any Christian divine, from the possi- 
bility of being guilty of a profanation so gross and revolt- 
ing. The title of it is Cum Meretrice Theodata de arte 
hominum dlliciendorum disserit, (Socrates, viz.) Doubtless 
many who heard Dr. Butler preach, and many more who 
have since read his sermon, have taken it for granted that 
when he ventured to recommend the conduct of Socrates, 
in associating with courtezans, as being an adumbration with 
that of our Saviour, he must have alluded to instances in 
the life of that philosopher of his having labored to re- 
claim the vicious, or to console the penitent with the hope 
of pardon. For ourselves, we know of no such instances. 
But what will be his surprise to find that the intercourse 
of Socrates with courtezans, as it is here recorded by 
Xenophon, was of the most licentious and profligate de- 
scription !" 



CH. IV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



213 



the moral government of God, and the freedom 
and responsibility of man, seem to require exami- 
nation, that the true doctrine of Scripture may 
be fully brought out and established. 1 

i There is another theory which was formerly much 
debated, under the name of Scientia Media ; hut to which, 
in the present day, reference is seldom made. The know- 
ledge of God was distributed into Necessary, which goes 
before every act of the will in the order of nature, and by 
which he knows himself, and all possible things: — Free, 
which follows the act of the will, and by which God knows 
all things which he has decreed to do and to permit, as 
things which he wills to be done or permitted : — Middle, so 
called because partaking of the two former kinds, by which 
he knows, sub conditione, what men and angels would 
voluntarily do under any given circumstances. " Tertiam 
Mediam, qua sub conditione novit quid homines aut angeli 
facturi essent pro sua libertate, si cum his aut illis circum- 
stantiis, in hoc vel in illo rerum ordine constituerentur." — 
Episcopius De Scientia Dei. They illustrate this kind of 
knowledge by such passages as, " Wo unto thee, Chorazin ! 
wo unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works which 
were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they 
would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." 
This distinction, which was taken from the Jesuits, who 
drew it from the schoolmen, was at least favored by some 
of the remonstrant divines, as the extract from Episcopius 
shows ; and they seem to have been led to it by the circum- 
stance that almost all the high Calvinist theologians of that 
day entirely denied the possibility of contingent future 
actions being foreknown, in order to support on this ground 
their doctrine of absolute predestination. In this, how- 
ever, those remonstrants who adopted that notion did not 
follow their great leader Arminius, who felt no need of this 
subterfuge, but stood on the plain declarations of Scripture, 
unembarrassed with metaphysical distinctions. Gomarus, 
on the other side, adopted this opinion, which was confined, 
among the Calvinists of that day, to himself and another. 
Gomarus betook himself to this notion of conditional pre- 
science, in order to avoid being charged with making God 
the author of the sin of Adam, and found it a convenient 
mode of eluding so formidable an objection, as Curcellaeus 
remarks : " Sapienter ergo, meo judicio, Gomarus, cum suam 
de reprobationis objecto sententiam hoc absurdo videret 
urgeri, quod Deum peccati Adami auctorem constituerit, ad 
praescientiam conditionatam confugit, qua Deus ex infinito 
sciential sum lumine, quaidam fidura non absolute, sed certa 
conditione posita pramovit. Hac enim ratione commodissime 
ictum istum declinavit. — Eumque postea secutus est Wal- 
leeus in Locis suis Communibus; qui etiam feliciter scopu- 
lum ilium prajtervehitur. — Nullum praeterea ex Calvini 
discipulis novi, qui hanc in Deo scientiam agnoscat." — De 
Jure Dei. 

To what practical end this opinion went, it is not easy 
to see, either as to such of the Calvinists or of the Armin- 
ians as adopted it. The point of the question, after all, was, 
whether the actual circumstances in which a free agent 
would be placed, and his conduct accordingly, could both bo 
foreknown. Gomarus, who adopted the view of conditional 
foreknowledge, as to Adam at least, conceded tho liberty 
of tho will, so far as tho first man was concerned, to his 
opponents; but Episcopius and others conceded by this 
notion something of more importance to the supralapsa- 
dans, who denied that the prescience of future contingen- 
cies was at all possible. However, both agreed to destroy 
the prescience of God as to actual contingencies, though 
the advocates <<r the Media Scientia reserved the point as 
r lather hypothetic ones, and thus the whole 
Was, after all, rei olved Into the wider question, Is the know- 
ttingencies possible \ This point will bo 
presently considered. 



The Chevalier Ramsay, among his other specu- 
lations, holds "it a matter of choice in God to 
think of finite ideas;" and similar opinions, 
though variously worded, have been occasionally 
adopted. In substance these opinions are, that 
though the knowledge of God be infinite, as his 
power is infinite, there is no more reason to con- 
clude that his knowledge should be always 
exerted to the full extent of its capacity, than 
that his power should be employed to the extent 
of his omnipotence ; and that if we suppose him 
to choose not to know some contingencies, the 
infiniteness of his knowledge is not thereby im- 
pugned. To this it may be answered, "that the 
infinite power of God is in Scripture represented, 
as in the nature of things it must be, as an in- 
finite capacity, and not as infinite in act ; but that 
the knowledge of God is on the contrary never 
represented there to us as a capacity to acquire 
knowledge, but as actually comprehending all 
things that are, and all things that can be. 2. 
That the notion of God's choosing to know some 
things, and not to know others, supposes a reason 
why he refuses to know any class of things or 
events, which reason, it would seem, can only 
arise out of their nature and circumstances, and 
therefore supposes at least a partial knowledge 
of them, from which the reason for his not 
choosing to know them arises. The doctrine is 
therefore somewhat contradictory. But, 3, it is 
fatal to this opinion, that it does not at all meet 
the difficulty arising out of the question of the 
congruity of Divine prescience, and the free 
actions of man : since some contingent actions, 
for which men have been made accountable, we 
are sure have been for eknown by God, because by 
his Spirit in the prophets they were foretold ; and 
if the freedom of man can in these cases be 
reconciled to the prescience of God, there is no 
greater difficulty in any other case which can 
possibly occur. 

A second theory is, that the foreknowledge of 
contingent events, being in its own nature im- 
possible, because it implies a contradiction, it 
does no dishonor to the Divine Being to affirm, 
that of such events he has and can have no pre- 
science whatever; and thus the prescience of 
God as to moral actions being wholly denied, 
the difficulty of reconciling it with human free- 
dom and accountability has no existence. 1 

To this the same answer must be given :i< 
to the former. It does not meet the ease, so 
long as the Scriptures are allowed to con- 

1 So little effect has this theory in removing any diffi- 
culty, that persons of the mOSl opposite theological senti- 
ments have claimed it in their favor — SocinUB and his 

followers, — all the Bupralapsarian Calvinists, — and a few 

Arminiaus. 



214 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



tain prophecies of rewardable and punishable 
actions. 

That man is accountable to God for his con- 
duct, and therefore free, that is, laid under no 
invincible necessity of acting in a given manner, 
are doctrines clearly contained in the Bible, and 
the notion of necessity has here its full and satis- 
factory reply ; but if a difficulty should be felt 
in reconciling the freedom of an action with the 
prescience of it, it affords not the slightest relief 
to deny the foreknowledge of God as to actions 
in general, while the Scriptures contain predic- 
tions of the conduct of men whose actions cannot 
have been determined by invincible necessity, 
because they were actions for which they re- 
ceived from God a just and marked punishment. 
Whether the scheme of relief be, that the know- 
ledge of God, like his power, is arbitrary; or 
that the prescience of contingencies is impossi- 
ble ; so long as the Scriptures are allowed to 
contain predictions of the conduct of men, good 
or bad, the difficulty remains in all its force. 
The whole body of prophecy is founded on the 
certain prescience of contingent actions, or it is 
not prediction, but guess and conjecture — to such ! 
fearful results does the denial of the Divine pre- ' 
science lead ! No one can deny that the Bible 
contains predictions of the rise and fall of sev- 
eral kingdoms : that Daniel, for instance, pro- ! 
phesied of the rise, the various fortune, and the 
fall of the celebrated monarchies of antiquity. 
But empires do not rise and fall wholly by imme- 
diate acts of God : they are not thrown up like . 
new islands in the ocean, they do not fall like 
cities in an earthquake, by the direct exertion 
of Divine power. They are carried through their 
various stages of advance and decline, by the 
virtues and the vices of men, which God makes 
the instruments of their prosperity or destruc- 
tion. Counsels, wars, science, revolutions, all 
crowd in their agency : and the predictions are 
of the combined and ultimate results of all these 
circumstances, which, as arising out of the vices 
and virtues of men, out of innumerable acts of 
choice, are contingent. Seen they must have been 
through all their stages, and seen in their results, 
for prophecy has registered those results. The 
prescience of them cannot be denied, for that is 
on the record ; and if certain prescience involves 
necessity, then are the daily virtues and vices of 
men not contingent. It was predicted that Ba- 
bylon should be taken by Cyrus in the midst of 
a midnight revel, in which the gates should be 
left unguarded and open. Xow, if all the actions 
which arose out of the warlike disposition and 
ambition of Cyrus were contingent, what be- 
comes of the principle that it is impossible to 
foreknow contingencies ? — they were foreknown, 



[part II. 

because the result of them was predicted. If 
the midnight revel of the Babylonian monarch 
was contingent, (the circumstance which led to 
the neglect of the gates of the city,) that also 
was foreknown, because predicted: if not con- 
tingent, the actions of both monarchs were ne- 
cessary, and to neither of them can be ascribed 
virtue or vice. 

Our Lord predicts, most circumstantially, the 
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. If this 
be allowed, then the contingencies involved in 
the conduct of the Jews who provoked that fatal 
war — in the Roman senate who decreed it — in 
the Roman generals who carried it on — in the 
Roman and Jewish soldiers who were engaged in 
it — were all foreseen, and the result of them pre- 
dicted: if they were not contingencies, that is, 
if they were not free actions, then the virtues 
and vices of both parties, and all the acts of 
skill, and courage, and enterprise, and all the 
cruelties and sufferings of the besieged and the 
besiegers, arising out of innumerable volitions, 
and giving rise to the events so circumstantially 
marked in the prophecy, were determined by an 
irreversible necessity. The 53d chapter of Isaiah 
predicts that Messiah should be taken away by 
a violent death, inflicted by men in defiance of 
all the principles of justice. The record cannot 
be blotted out ; and if the conduct of the Jews 
was not, as the advocates of this scheme will 
contend it was not, influenced by necessity, then 
we have all the contingencies of their hatred, 
and cruelties, and injustice predicted, and there- 
fore foreknoicn. The same observations might 
be applied to St. Paul's prediction of a " falling 
away" in the Church : of the rise of the "man 
of sin;" and, in a word, to every prediction 
which the sacred volume contains. If there be 
any predictions in the Bible at all, every scheme 
which denies the prescience of contingencies 
must compel us into the doctrine of necessity, 
which in this place it is not necessary to discuss. 

On the main principle of the theory just men- 
tioned, that the prescience of contingent events 
is impossible, because their nature would be de- 
stroyed by it, we may add a few remarks. That 
the subject is incomprehensible as to the manner 
in which the Divine Being foreknows future 
events of this or of any kind, even the greatest 
minds, which have applied themselves to such 
speculations, have felt and acknowledged. The 
fact that such a property exists in the Divine 
nature is, however, too clearly stated in Scrip- 
ture to allow of any doubt in those who are 
disposed to submit to its authority : and it is not 
left to the uncertainty of our speculations on the 
properties of spiritual natures, either to be con- 
firmed or disproved. Equally clear is it that the 



CH. IV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



215 



moral actions of men are not necessitated, be- 
cause human accountability is the main pillar of 
that moral government, whose principles, con- 
duct, and ends, are stated so largely in Divine 
revelation. Whatever, therefore, becomes of 
human speculations, these points are sufficiently 
settled on an authority which is abundantly suffi- 
cient. To the objection of metaphysicians of 
different classes, against either of these princi- 
ples, that such is not the sense of the Scriptures, 
because the fact " cannot be so, it involves a con- 
tradiction^ not the least importance is to be 
attached, when the plain, concurrent, and uni- 
form sense of Scripture, interpreted as any other 
book would be interpreted, determines to the 
contrary. It surely does not follow that a thing 
cannot be, because men do not see, or pretend 
not to see, that it can be. This would lay the 
foundation of our faith in the strength or weak- 
ness of other men's intellect. We are not, how- 
ever, in many cases, left wholly to this answer, 
and it may be shown that the position that cer- 
tain prescience destroys contingency is a mere 
sophism, and that this conclusion is connected 
with the premise by a confused use of terms. 

The great fallacy in the argument, that the 
certain prescience of a moral action destroys its 
contingent nature, lies in supposing that con- 
tingency and certainty are the opposites of each 
other. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that a word 
which is of figurative etymology, and which, con- 
sequently, can only have an ideal application to 
such subjects, should have grown into common 
use in this discussion, because it is more liable 
on that account to present itself to different 
minds under different shades of meaning. If, 
however, the term contingent in this controversy has 
any definite meaning at all, as applied to the moral 
actions of men, it must mean their freedom, and 
stands opposed, not to certainty, but to necessity. 
A free action is a voluntary one ; and an action 
which results from the choice of the agent, is 
distinguished from a necessary one in this, that 
it might not have been, or have been otherwise, 
according to the self-determining power of the 
agent. It is with reference to this specific qual- 
ity of a free action that the term contingency is 
used — it might have been otherwise; in other words, 
it was not necessitated. Contingency in moral 
actions is, therefore, their freedom, and is op- 
posed, not to certainly, but to necessity. The 
very nature of tins controversy fixes this as the 
precise meaning of the term. The question is 
not, in point of fact, about the certainty of mora] 
actions, that is, whether they will happen 01 not; 
hut about the nature of them, whether free or 
constrained, whether they rnuet happen or not. 
Those who advocate this theory caro not about 



the certainty 1 of actions, simply considered, that 
is, whether they will take place or not: the 
reason why they object to a certain prescience 
of moral actions is, that they conclude that such 
a prescience renders them necessary. It is the 
quality of the action for which they contend, not 
whether it will happen or not. If contingency 
meant uncertainty, the sense in which such theo- 
rists take it, the dispute would be at an end. But 
though an uncertain action cannot be foreseen 
as certain, a free, unnecessitated action may; 
for there is nothing in the knowledge of the ac- 
tion, in the least, to affect its nature. Simple 
knowledge is, in no sense, a cause of action, nor 
can it be conceived to be causal, unconnected 
with exerted power : for mere knowledge, there- 
fore, an action remains free or necessitated, as 
the case may be. A necessitated action is not 
made a voluntary one by its being foreknown : 
a free action is not made a necessary one. Free 
actions foreknown will not, therefore, cease to be 
contingent. But how stands the case as to their 
certainty? Precisely on the same ground. The 
certainty of a necessary action foreknown, does 
not result from the knowledge of the action, but 
from the operation of the necessitating cause ; 
and, in like manner, the certainty of a free 
action does not result from the knowledge of it, 
which is no cause at all, but from the voluntary 
cause, that is, the determination of the will. It 
alters not the case in the least to say that the 
voluntary action might have been otherwise. 
Had it been otherwise, the knowledge of it 
would have been otherwise ; but as the will, 
which gives birth to the action, is not dependent 
upon the previous knowledge of God, but the 
knowledge of the action upon foresight of the 
choice of the will, neither the will nor the act is 
controlled by the knowledge, and the action, 
though foreseen, is still free or contingent. 

The foreknowledge of God has, then, no influ- 
ence upon either the freedom or the certainty of 
actions, for this plain reason, that it is knowledge 
and not influence; and actions may be certainly 
foreknown, without their being rendered neces- 
sary by that foreknowledge. But here it is said, 
If the result of an absolute contingency be cer- 
tainly foreknown, it can have no other result, it 
cannot happen otherwise. This is not the true 
inference. It will not happen otherwise ; but, I 
ask, Why can it not happen otherwise? Can is 
an expression of potentiality — it denotes power 

1 Certainty is, properly speaking, no quality of an aotion 
at all, unless it bo taken in the sense of a fixed ami n.cs- 
sitated action: in tins controversy it means the certainty 
which the mind that foresees lias thai an action iriU be 
done, and the certainty Is therefore in the mind, and not 
in tho action. 



216 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



or possibility. The objection is, that it is not 
possible that the action should otherwise happen. 
But why not ? What deprives it of that power ? 
If a necessary action were in question, it could 
not otherwise happen than as the necessitating 
cause shall compel ; but then that would arise 
from the necessitating cause solely, and not from 
the prescience of the action, which is not causal. 
But if the action be free, and it enter into the 
very nature of a voluntary action to be uncon- 
strained, then it might have happened in a thou- 
sand other ways, or not have happened at all : 
the foreknowledge of it no more affects its na- 
ture in this case than in the other. All its 
potentiality, so to speak, still remains, inde- 
pendent of foreknowledge, which neither adds 
to its power of happening otherwise nor dimi- 
nishes it. But then we are told that the pre- 
science of it, in that case, must be uncertain : 
not unless any person can prove that the Divine 
prescience is unable to dart through all the 
workings of the human mind, all its comparison 
of things in the judgment, all the influences of 
motives on the affections, all the hesitancies and 
baitings of the will, to its final choice. "Such 
knowledge is too iconderful for us," but it is the 
knowledge of Him who "understandeth the 
thoughts of man afar off." 

But if a contingency will have a given result, 
to that result it must be determined. Not in the 
least. We have seen that it cannot be deter- 
mined to a given result by mere precognition, for 
we- have evidence in our own minds that mere 
knowledge is not causal to the actions of another. 
It is determined to its result by the will of the 
agent ; but even in that case it cannot be said 
that it must be determined to that result, because 
it is of the nature of freedom to be uncon- 
strained : so that here we have an instance in 
the case of a free agent that he will act in some 
particular manner, but that it by no means fol- 
lows from what will be, whether foreseen or not, 
that it must be. 

On this subject, so much controverted, and on 
which so much, in the way of logical conse- 
quence, depends, I add a few authorities. 

Dr. S. Clarke observes: "They who suppose 
that events, which are called contingent, cannot 
be certainly foreknown, must likewise suppose 
that when there is not a chain of necessary 
causes, there can be no certainty of any future 
events ; but this is a mistake, for let us suppose 
that there is in man a power of beginning mo- 
tion, and of acting with what has, of late, been 
called philosophical freedom ; and let us suppose 
further, that the actions of such a man cannot 
possibly be foreknown : will there not yet be in 
the nature of things, notwithstanding this suppo- 



[PART II. 

sition, the same certainty of event in every one 
of the man's actions, as if they were ever so 
fatal and necessary ? For instance, suppose the 
man, by an internal principle of motion and an 
absolute freedom of mind, to do some particular 
action to-day, and suppose it was not possible 
that this action should have been foreseen yester- 
day : was there not, nevertheless, the same cer- 
tainty of event as if it had been foreseen, and 
absolutely necessary ? That is, would it not have 
been as certain a truth yesterday, and from 
eternity, that this action was an event to be per- 
formed to-day, notwithstanding the supposed 
freedom, as it is now a certain and infallible 
truth that it is performed ? Mere certainty of 
event, therefore, does not in any measure imply 
necessity. And surely it implies no contradiction 
to suppose that every future event which, in the 
nature of things, is now certain, may now be 
certainly known by that intelligence which is 
omniscient. The manner how God can foreknow 
future events, without a chain of necessary 
causes, it is indeed impossible for us to explain ; 
yet some sort of general notion of it we may 
conceive. For, as a man who has no influence 
over another person's actions can yet often per- 
ceive beforehand what that other will do ; and a 
wiser and more experienced man, with still 
greater probability, will foresee what another, 
with whose disposition he is perfectly acquainted, 
will in certain circumstances do ; and an angel, 
with still less degree of error, may have a further 
prospect into men's future actions : so it is very 
reasonable to conceive that God, without influ- 
encing men's wills by his power, or subjecting 
them to a chain of necessary causes, cannot but 
have a knowledge of future free events, as much 
more certain than men or angels can possibly 
have, as the perfection of his nature is greater 
than that of theirs. The distinct manner how 
he foresees these things, we cannot, indeed, 
explain ; but neither can we explain the manner 
of numberless other things, of the reality of 
which, however, no man entertains a doubt." 
Dr. Copleston judiciously remarks : 
"The course indeed of the material world 
seems to proceed upon such fixed and uniform 
laws, that short experience, joined to close atten- 
tion, is sufficient to enable a man, for all useful 
purposes, to anticipate the general result of 
causes now in action. In the moral world, much 
greater uncertainty exists. Every one feels that 
what depends upon the conduct of his fellow- 
creatures, is less certain than what is to be 
brought about by the agency of the laws of 
matter ; and yet even here — since man is a being 
of a certain composition, having such and such 
faculties, inclinations, affections, desires, and 



CH. IV.] 

appetites — it is very possible for those who study 
his nature attentively, especially for those who 
have practical experience of any individual or 
of any community of men, to foretell how they 
will be affected and how they will act under any 
supposed circumstances. The same power (in 
an unlimited degree as before) it is natural and 
reasonable to ascribe to that Being, who excels 
the wisest of us infinitely more than the wisest 
of us excels his fellow-creatures. 

"It never enters the mind of a person who 
reflects in this way, that his anticipation of ano- 
ther's conduct lays any restraint upon that man's 
conduct when he comes to act. The anticipation 
indeed is relative to himself, not to the other. If it 
affected him in the remotest degree, his conduct 
would vary in proportion to the strength of the 
conviction in the mind of the thinker that he will 
so act. But no man really believes in this magi- 
cal sympathy. No man supposes the certainty of 
the event (to use a common, but, as I conceive, 
an improper term) to correspond at all with the 
certainty of him who foretells or expects it. In 
fact, every day's experience shows that men are 
deceived in the event, even when they regarded 
themselves as most certain, and when they would 
readily have used the strongest phrases to denote 
that certainty, not from any intention to deceive, 
but from an honest persuasion that such an event 
must happen. How is it then ? God can never 
be deceived — his knowledge, therefore, is always 
accompanied or followed by the event — and yet 
if we get an idea of what his knowledge is, by 
our own, why should we regard it as dragging 
the event along with it, when in our own case 
we acknowledge the two things to have no con- 
nection ? 

"But here the advocate for necessity inter- 
poses, and says, True, your knowledge does not 
affect the event, over which you have no 
power ; but God, who is all-powerful, who made 
all things as they are, and who knows all that 
will come to pass, must be regarded as render- 
ing that necessary which he foreknows : just as 
even you may be considered accessory to the 
event which you anticipate, exactly in propor- 
tion to the share you have had in preparing the 
instruments or forming the minds of those who 
are to bring it about. 

"To this I answer, that tho connection be- 
tween knowledge and tho event is not at all esta- 
blish^! by this argument. It is not because I 
ftnew what would follow, but because I con- 
tributed toward it, that it is influenced by me. 
You may if you please contend, that because 
God made every thing, therefore all things that 
happen are done by him. This is taking an- 
other ground, for the doctrine of necessity, 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



217 



which will be considered presently. All I main- 
tain now is, that the notion of God's foreknow- 
ledge ought not to interfere in the slightest 
degree with our belief in the contingency of 
events, and the freedom of human actions. The 
confusion has, I conceive, arisen chiefly from 
the ambiguity of the word certainty, used as it 
is even by learned writers, both in its relation 
to the mind which thinks, and to the object 
about which it is thinking." — Inquiry into Neces- 
sity, etc. 

To the above I add a passage from a divine 
of much older date, who has stated the argu- 
ment with admirable clearness. 

In answer to the common argument, "As 
a thing is, such is the knowledge of it : future 
contingencies are uncertain, therefore they 
cannot be known as certain," he observes, " It 
is wonderful, that acute minds should not have 
detected the fallacy of this paralogism. For 
the major, which is vaunted as an axiom of un- 
doubted truth, is most false unless it be pro- 
perly explained. For if a thing is evil, shall the 
knowledge of it be evil ? Then neither God nor 
angels could know the sins of men, without 
sinning themselves ! Again, should a thing be 
necessary, will the knowledge of it, on that 
account, be also necessary ? But many things are 
necessary, in the nature of things, which either 
are unknown to us, or only known doubtfully. 
Many persons doubt even the existence of God, 
which in the highest sense is necessary, so far 
are they from having a necessary knowledge of 
him. That proposition, therefore, is only true 
in this sense, that our knowledge must agree 
with the things which are known, and that we 
know them as they are in reality, and not 
otherwise. Thus I ought to think that the 
paper on which I write is white and the ink 
black ; for if I fancy the ink white, and the 
paper black, this is not knowledge, but igno- 
rance, or rather deception. In like manner, 
true knowledge ought to regard things necessary 
as necessary, and things contingent as contingent; 
but it requires not that necessary things should 
be known necessarily, and contingent things 
contingently ; for tho contrary often happens. 

" But the minor of the above syllogism is 
ambiguous and improper. The things about 
which our minds aro exercised, aro in themselves 
neither certain nor uncertain. They aro called 
so only in respect of him who knows them; 
but thoy themselves aro necessary or contingent* 
But if you understand by a certain thing a 
necessary one, and by an uncertain thing that 
which is contingent, as many by an abuse o( terms 
do, then your minor will appear to be identical 
and nugatory, for it will stand, 'Future contin- 



218 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART n. 



gencies are contingent.' from -which no conclusion 
can be drawn. It is to be concluded, that cer- 
titude and incertitude are not affections of the 
things which are or may be known, but of the 
intellect of him who has knowledge of them, and 
who forms different judgments respecting them. 
For one and the same thing, without any change 
in itself, mar be certain and uncertain at the 
same time : certain indeed to him who knows it 
certainly, but to him who knows it not, uncertain. 
For example, the same future eclipse of the 
sun shall be certain to a skilful astronomer 
who has calculated it : uncertain to him who is 
ignorant of the laws of the heavenly bodies. 
But that cannot be said concerning the neces- 
sity and contingency of things. They remain 
such as they are in their own nature, whether 
we know them or not ; for an eclipse, which 
from the laws of nature must necessarily take 
place, is not made contingent by my ignorance 
and uncertainty whether it will or will not 
happen. For this reason they are mistaken who 
say that things determined by the decree of 
God are necessary in respect of God ; but that 
to us, who know not his decrees, they are con- 
tingent ; for our ignorance cannot make that 
which is future and necessary, because God hath 
decreed it, change its nature, and become con- 
tingent. It is no contradiction indeed to say, 
that one and the same thing may be at once 
necessary and yet uncertain, but that it should 
be necessary and contingent is a manifest contra- 
diction. To God, therefore, whose knowledge is 
infinite, future contingencies are indeed certain, 
but to angels and men uncertain ; nor are they 
made necessary because God knows them cer- 
tainly. The knowledge of God influences no- 
thing extrinsic ally, nor changes the nature of 
things in any wise. He knows future necessary 
things as necessary, but contingencies as con- 
tingencies ; otherwise he would not know them 
truly, but be deceived, which cannot happen to 
God. ,: — Curcell-Etts. De Jure Dei, 1615. 

The rudiments of the third theory which this 
controversy has called forth, may be found in 
many theological writers, ancient and modern ; 
but it is stated at large in the writings of Arch- 
bishop King, and requires some notice, because 
the views of that writer have of late been again 
made a subject of controversy. They amount, 
in brief, to this, that the foreknowledge of God 
must be supposed to differ so much from any 
thing of the kind we perceive in ourselves, and 
from any ideas which we can possibly form of 
that property of the Divine nature, that no 
argument respecting it can be grounded upon 
our imperfect notions : and that all controversy 
on subjects connected with it is idle and fruitless. 



In establishing this view, Archbishop Fung, in 
his Sermon on Divine Predestination and Fore- 
knowledge, has the following observations : — 

"It is in effect agreed on all hands, that the 
nature of God is incomprehensible by human 
understanding; and not only his nature, but 
likewise his powers and faculties, and the ways 
and methods in which he exercises them, are so 
far beyond our reach, that we are utterly in- 
capable of framing exact and adequate notions 
of them. 

' • vVe ought to remember that the descriptions 
which we frame to ourselves of God, or of the 
Divine attributes, are not taken from any direct 
or immediate perceptions that we have of him 
or them : but from some observations we have 
made of his works, and from the consideration 
of those qualifications that we conceive would 
enable us to perform the like. 

"It doth truly follow from hence that God 
must either have these, or other faculties equiva- 
lent to them, and adequate to these mighty 
effects which proceed from them. And because 
we do not know what his faculties are in them- 
selves, we give them the names of those powers 
that we find would be necessary to us in order 
to produce such effects, and call them wisdom, 
understanding, and foreknowledge : yet at the 
same time we cannot but be sensible that they are 
of a nature altogether different from ours, and that 
ice have no direct and proper notion or conception 
of them. Only we are sure that they have effects 
Eke unto those that proceed from wisdom, under- 
standing, and foreknowledge in us : and that 
when our works fail to resemble them in any 
particular, it is by reason of some defect in these 
qualifications. 

" Thus our reason teaches us to ascribe these 
attributes to God, by way of analogy to such 
qualities as we find most valuable in ourselves. 

"If we look into the Holy Scriptures, and 
consider the representations given us there of 
God or his attributes, we shall find them plainly 
borrowed from some resemblance to things with 
which we are acquainted by our senses. Thus, 
when the Holy Scriptures speak of God, they 
ascribe hands, and eyes, and feet to him: not 
that we should believe he has any of these 
members, according to the literal signification: 
but the meaning is, that he has a power to exe- 
cute all those acts, to the effecting of which these 
parts in us are instrumental : that is, he can con- 
verse with men as well as if he had a tongue and 
mouth : he can discern all that we do or say as 
perfectly as if he had eyes and ears : he can 
reach us as well as if he had hands and feet: 
he has as true and substantial a being as if 
he had a body; and he is as truly present 



CH. IV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



219 



everywhere as if that body were infinitely ex- 
tended. 

"After the same manner, we find him represented 
as affected with such passions as we perceive to be 
in ourselves, namely, as angry and pleased, as lov- 
ing and hating, as repenting and changing his reso- 
lutions, as full of mercy and provoked to revenge. 
And yet on reflection we cannot think that any of 
these passions literally affect the Divine nature. 

"And as the passions of men are thus by 
analogy ascribed to God, because these would in 
us be the principles of such outward actions as 
we see he has performed, so, by the same con- 
descension to the weakness of our capacities, we 
find the powers and operations of our minds 
ascribed to him. 

" The use of foreknowledge with us is to pre- 
vent any surprise when events happen, and that 
we may not be at a loss what to do by things 
coming upon us unawares. Now, inasmuch as 
we are certain that nothing can surprise God, 
and that he can never be at a loss what to do, we 
conclude that God has a faculty to which our 
foreknowledge bears some analogy ; therefore we 
call it by that name. 

"But it does not follow from hence that any 
of these are literally in God, after the manner 
they are in us, any more than hands or eyes, than 
love or hatred are : on the contrary, we must 
acknowledge that those things which we call by 
these names, when attributed to God, are of so 
very different a nature from what they are in us, 
and so superior to all that we can conceive, that 
in reality there is no more likeness between them 
than between our hand and God's power. Nor 
can we draw consequences from the real nature 
of one to that of the other with more justness 
of reason than we can conclude, because our 
hand consists of fingers and joints, therefore the 
power of God is distinguished by such parts. 

" So that to argue, ' because foreknowledge, 
as it is in us, if supposed infallible, cannot con- 
sist with the contingency of events, therefore 
what we call so in God cannot,' is as far from 
reason as it would be to conclude, because our 
eyes cannot see in the dark, therefore, when God 
is said to see all things, his eyes must be 
enlightoned with a perpetual sunshine ; or, 
because we cannot love or hate without passion, 
therefore, when the Scriptures ascribe these to 
God, they teach us that he is liable to these 
affections as wo are. 

" Wo ought, therefore, to interpret all these 
tilings, when attributed to God, only by way of 
Condescension to our capacities, in order to help 
us to conceive what wo are to expect from him, 
and what duty wo aro to pay him. Particularly 
tlm terms of foreknowledge, predestination, nay, 



of understanding and will, when ascribed to 
him, are not to be taken strictly or properly, nor 
are we to think that they are in him in the same 
sense that we find them in ourselves : on the con- 
trary, we are to interpret them only by way of 
analogy and comparison." 

These views have recently been advocated by 
Dr. Copleston, in his "Inquiry into the Doctrines 
of Necessity and Predestination;" but to this 
theory the first objection is, that, like the 
former, it does not in the least relieve the diffi- 
culty, for the entire subduing of which it was 
adopted. 

For though foreknowledge in God should be 
admitted to be something of a "very different 
nature" to the same quality in man, yet, as it is 
represented as something equivalent to foreknow- 
ledge, whatever that something may be — as, in 
consequence of it, prophecies have actually been 
uttered and fulfilled, and of such a kind, too, as 
relate to actions for which men have, in fact, 
been held accountable — all the original difficulty 
of reconciling contingent events to this something, 
of which human foreknowledge is a "kind of 
shadow," as " a map of China is to China itself," 
remains in full force. The difficulty is shifted, 
but not removed : it cannot even be with more 
facility slided past; and either the Christian 
world must be content to forego all inquiries 
into these subjects — a consummation not to be 
expected, however it may be wished — or the 
contest must be resumed on another field, with 
no advantage from better ground or from broader 
daylight. 

A further objection to these notions is, that 
they are dangerous. 

For if it be true that the faculties we ascribe 
to God are "of a nature altogether different front 
our own, and that we have no direct and proper 
notion or conception of them," then, in point of 
fact, we have no proper revelation at all of the 
nature of God, and of his attributes, in the 
Scriptures ; and what we esteem to be such, is a 
revelation of terms to which we can attach no 
"proper notion." If this conclusion be well 
founded, then it is so monstrous that the pre- 
mises on which it hangs must be unsound and 
anti-scriptural. This alone is a sufficient general 
refutation of the hypothesis ; but a more par- 
ticular examination will show that it rests upon 
false assumptions; and that it introduces gratu- 
itous difficulties, not called for by the supposed 
difficulty of reconciling the foreknowledge of 
God with the freedom of human actions. 

1. It is assumed that the descriptions which 
we frame to ourselves of God are taken from the 
observations we have made on his works, and 

from tho consciousness oi' those qualifications 



220 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



which, we conceive, would enable us to perform 
the like. This might be, in part, true of hea- 
thens, left without the light of revelation; but 
it is not true of those who enjoy that advantage. 
Our knowledge of God comes from the Scrip- 
tures, which are taught to us in our infancy, 
and with which, either by reading or hearing, we 
become familiar as we grow up. The notions we 
have of God, so far as they agree with the Scrip- 
tures, are, therefore, not those which we have 
framed by the process assumed by the archbishop, 
but those which have been declared to us in the 
Scriptures, by God himself, as descriptions of 
his own nature. This makes a great difference. 
Our own modes of forming conceptions of the 
Divine nature would have no authority higher 
than ourselves : the announcements of Scripture 
are the word of God, communicating by human 
language the truth and reality of things as to 
himself. This is the constant profession of the 
sacred writers : they tell us, not what there is in 
man which may support an analogy between 
man and God, but what God is in himself. 

2. It is assumed, that because the nature of 
God is "incomprehensible," we have no "proper 
notion or conception of it." The term "proper 
notion "is vague. It may mean "an exact and 
adequate notion," which it may be granted with- 
out hesitation that we have not; or it may mean 
a notion correct and true in itself, though not 
complete and comprehensive. A great part of the 
fallacy lies here. To be incomprehensible is not, 
in every case, and assuredly not in this, to be 
unintelligible. We may know God, though we 
cannot fully know him ; and our notions may be 
true, though not adequate; and they must be 
true, if we have rightly understood God's reve- 
lation of himself. Of being, for instance, we 
can form a true notion, because we are conscious 
of our own existence; and, though we cannot 
extend the conception to absolute being, or self- 
existence, because our being is a dependent one, 
we can yet supply the defect, as we are taught 
by the Scriptures, by the negative notion of in- 
dependence. Of spirit we have a true notion, and 
understand, therefore, what is meant when it is 
said that " God is a Spirit;" and though we can 
have but an imperfect conception of an infinite 
spirit, we can supply that want, also, to all 
practical purposes, by the negative process of 
removing all imperfection, or limit of excellence, 
from our views of the Divine nature. We have 
a true notion of the presence of one being with 
other beings, and with place ; and, though we 
cannot comprehend the mode in which God is 
omnipresent, we are able to conceive without dif- 
ficulty the fact that the Divine presence fills all 
things. We have true notions of power and 



[part II. 

knowledge, and can suppose them infinite, though 
how they should be so we know not. And as to 
the moral attributes, such as truth, justice, and 
goodness, we have not only true, but comprehen- 
sive, and, for any thing that appears to the con- 
trary, adequate notions of them ; for our difficul- 
ties as to these attributes do not arise from any 
incapacity to conceive of what is perfect truth, 
perfect justice, and perfect goodness, but from our 
inability to show how many things, which occur 
in the Divine government, are to be reconciled 
to these attributes ; and that, not because our 
notions of the attributes themselves are obscure, 
but because the things out of which such ques- 
tions arise are, either in themselves or in their 
relations, but partially understood or greatly 
mistaken. Job and his friends did not differ in 
abstract views of the justice of the moral govern- 
ment of God, but in reconciling Job's afflictions 
with it. 

3. It is assumed that the nature of God is 
essentially different from the spiritual nature of 
man. This is not the doctrine of Scripture. 
When it says that "God is a Spirit," we have no 
reason to conclude that a distant analogy, such 
a one as springs out of mere relation, which, in 
a poetic imagination, might be sufficient to sup- 
port a figure of speech, is alone intended. The 
very argument connected with these words, in 
the discourse of our Lord with the woman of 
Samaria, forbids this. It is a declaration of the 
nature of God, and of the worship suited to his 
nature ; and the word employed is that by which 
both Jews and Samaritans had been taught by 
the same inspired records, which they each pos- 
sessed, to designate and conceive of the intel- 
lectual nature of man. The nature of God, and 
the nature of man, are not the same ; but they 
are similar, because they bear many attributes in 
common, though on the part of the Divine nature 
in a degree of perfection infinitely exceeding. 
The difference of degree, however, cannot prove 
a difference of essence, — no, nor the circumstance 
that one has attributes which the other has not, 
— in any sense of the word difference which could 
be of service to the advocates of this hypothesis. 
But if a total difference is proved as to the intel- 
lectual attributes of God and men, that difference 
must be extended to the moral attributes also ; 
and so the very foundation of morals and religion 
would be undermined. This point was success- 
fully pressed by Edwards against Archbishop 
King, and it is met very feebly by Dr. Copleston. 
"Edwards," he observes, "raises a clamor about 
the moral attributes, as if their nature also must 
be held to be different in kind from human vir- 
tues, if the knowledge of God be admitted to be 
different in kind from ours." Certainly this 



CH. IV.] 

follows from the principles laid down by Arch- 
bishop King ; and if his followers take his con- 
clusions as to the intellectual attributes, they 
must take them as to the moral attributes also. 
If the faculties of God be " of a nature altogether 
different from ours," we have no more reason to 
except from this rule the truth and the justice, 
than the wisdom and the prescience of God ; and 
the reasoning of Archbishop King is as conclu- 
sive in the one case as in the other. 

The fallacy of the above assumptions is suffi- 
cient to destroy the hypothesis which has been 
built upon them ; and the argument from Scrip- 
ture may be shown to be as unfounded. It is, as 
the above extract will show, in brief this, that as 
the Scriptures ascribe, by analogy, hands, and 
eyes, and feet to God, and also the passions of 
love, hatred, anger, etc., "because these would 
be in us the principles of such outward actions 
as we see he has performed, so, by the same 
condescension to the weakness of our capacities, 
we find the powers and operations of our minds 
ascribed to him." But will the advocates of this 
opinion look steadily to its legitimate conse- 
quences ? We believe not ; and those conse- 
quences must, therefore, be its total refutation. 
For if both our intellectual and moral affections 
are made use of but as distant analogies, and 
obscure intimations, to convey to us an imperfect 
knowledge of the intellectual powers and affec- 
tions of the Divine nature, in the same manner as 
human hands and human eyes are made to 
represent his power and his knowledge, it 
follows that there is nothing in the Divine nature 
which answers more truly and exactly to know- 
ledge, justice, truth, mercy, and other qualities in 
man, than the knowledge of God answers to 
human organs of vision, or his power to the 
hands or the feet ; and from this it would follow, 
that nothing is said in the Scriptures of the 
Divine Being but what is, in the highest sense, 
figurative, and purely metaphorical. We are no 
more like God in our minds than in our bodies, 
and it might as truly have been said with respect 
to man's bodily shape, as to his mental faculties, 
that man was made "in the image of God." 1 

i "Though his Grace rightly lays clown analogy for tho 
foundation of his discourse, yot, for want of having tho- 
roughly weighed and digested it, and hy wording himself 
incautiously, he seoms entirely to destroy the nature of it: 
insomuch that while ho rejects tho strict propriety of our 
conceptions and words, on tho ono hand, ho appears to his 
antagonists to run into an extreme even bolow metaphor, 
on the other. 

'• Hi mm i mistake Is, that through his discourso ho 
supposes tho members and actions 'of a human body, which 
wr attribute to God in a pure metaphor, to be equally upon 
the same foot of analogy with the passions of a human 
6oul, which are attributed to him in -i Lower and more Im- 
perfect degree of analogy; ami even with the operations 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



221 



It is also to be observed, that when the 
Scriptures speak of the knowledge, power, and 
other attributes of God, in figurative language, 
taken from the eyes or hands of the body, it is 
sufficiently obvious that this language is meta- 
phorical, not only from the reason of things 
itself, but because the same ideas are also quite 
as often expressed without figure; and the 
metaphor therefore never misleads us. We have 
sufficient proof also that it never did mislead 
the Jews, even in the worst periods of their his- 
tory, and when their tendency to idolatry and 
gross superstition was most powerful. They 
made images in human shape of other gods, 
but never of Jehovah : the Jews were never 
anthropomorphites, whatever they might be be- 
side. But it is equally certain, that they did 
give a literal interpretation to those passages in 
their Scriptures which speak of the knowledge, 
justice, mercy, etc., of God, as the same in 
kind, though infinitely higher in their degree 
of excellence, with the same qualities in men. 
The reason is obvious : they could not inter- 
pret those passages of their holy writings which 
speak of the hands, the eyes, and the feet of 
God literally; because every part of the same 
sacred revelation was full of representations of 
the Divine nature, which declared his absolute 
spirituality ; and they could not interpret those 
passages figuratively which speak of tho in- 
tellectual and moral qualities of God in terms 
that express the same qualities in men ; be- 
cause their whole revelation did not furnish them 
with any hint, even the most distant, that there 



and perfections of the pure mind or intellect which are 
attributed to him in a yet higher and more complete de- 
gree. In pursuance of this oversight, he expressly asserts 
love and anger, wisdom and goodness, knowledge and 
foreknowledge, and all the other Divine attributes, to be 
spoken of God as improperly as eyes or ears : that there is 
no more likeness between these things in the Divine nature 
and in ours, than there is between our hand and God's 
power, and that they are not to bo taken in the same sense. 
"Agreeably to this incautious and indistinct manner of 
treating a subject curious and difficult, he hath unwarily 
dropped somo such shocking expressions as these: The best 
representations we can make of God are infinitely short of 
truth. Which God forbid, in the sense his adversaries take 
it; for thon all our reasonings concerning him would bo 
groundless and falso. But the saying is evidently true in a 
favorable and qualified sense and meaning: namely, that 
they are infinitely short of tho real, true, internal nature 
of God as ho is in himself. Again, that 'hey are emblems 
indeed and parabolical figures of the Divine attributes, which 
they are designed to signify : as if they were signs or Qgures 
of our own, altogether precarious and arbitrary, and with- 
out any real and true foundation of analogy between them 

in I ho nature of either God or man: and accordingly lie 

unhappily describes t be knowledge we have of God and ids 
attributes, hy the notion wo form of a strange country by 

a map, which is only paper and ink, strokes and lines."' 

-i;is/up Brown's Trocedurtqf Human Understanding, 



222 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



was a more literal or exact sense in which they 
could be taken. It was not possible for any 
man to take literally that sublimely figurative 
representation of the upholding and ruling power 
of God, where he is said to "measure the waters" 
of the ocean "in the hollow of his hand," unless 
he could also conclude that where he is said to 
"weigh the mountains in scales, and the hills in 
a balance," he was to understand this literally 
also. The idea suggested is that of sustaining, 
regulating, and adjusting power ; but if he were 
told that he ought to take the idea of power 
in as figurative a sense as that of the waters 
being held in the hollow of the hand of God, and 
his weighing the mountains in scales, he would 
find it impossible to form any idea of the thing 
signified at all. The first step in the attempt 
would plunge him into total darkness. The 
figurative hand assists him to form the idea of 
managing and controlling power, but the figura- 
tive power suggests nothing ; and so this scheme 
blots out entirely all revelation of God of any 
kind, by resolving the whole into figures, which 
represent nothing of which we can form any con- 
ception. 

The argument of Archbishop King, from 
the passions which are ascribed to God in Scrip- 
ture, is not more conclusive. "After the same 
manner we find him represented as affected 
with such passions as we perceive to be in our- 
selves — as angry and pleased, as loving and 
hating, as repenting and changing his resolu- 
tions, as full of mercy, and provoked to re- 
venge ; and yet, on reflection, we cannot think 
that any of these passions literally affect the 
Divine nature." But why not? As they are 
represented in Scripture to be affections of the 
Divine nature, and not in the gross manner in 
which they are expressed in this extract, there 
seems nothing improper in taking them literally ; 
and no necessity is made out to compel us to 
understand them to signify somewhat for which 
we have not a name, and of which we can form 
no idea. The Scriptures nowhere warrant us 
to consider God as a cold metaphysical abstrac- 
tion ; and they nowhere indicate to us that when 
they ascribe affections to him, they are to be 
taken as mere figures of speech. On the con- 
trary, they teach us to consider them as an- 
swering substantially, though not circumstantially, 
to the innocent affections of men and angels. 
Why may not anger be "literally" ascribed to 
God, not indeed as it may be caricatured to 
suit a theory, but as we find it ascribed in the 
Scriptures ? It is not malignant anger, nor 
blind, stormy, and disturbing anger, which is 
spoken of ; nor is this always, nor need it be at 
any time, the anger of creatures. There is an 



I anger which is without sin in man — " a percep- 
j. tion of evil, and opposition to it, and also an 
emotion of mind, a sensation, or passion, suit- 
able thereto." (Wesley.) There was this in 
our Lord, who was without sin ; nor is it repre- 
sented by the evangelists, who give us the 
instances, as even an infirmity of the nature He 
assumed. In God it may be allowed to exist in 
a different manner to that in which it is found 
even in men who are "angry and sin not:" it 
is accompanied with no weakness, it is allied to 
no imperfection ; but that it does exist as truly 
in him as in man, is the doctrine of Scripture ; 
and there is no perfection ascribed to God to 
which it can be proved contrary, or with which 
we cannot conceive it to coexist. 1 Not only 
anger, we are told, is ascribed to God, but "the 
being pleased." Let the term used be com- 
placency, instead of one which seems to have 
been selected to convey a notion of a lower 
and less worthy kind, and there is no incon- 
gruity in the idea. He is the blessed or happy 
God, and therefore capable of pleasure. He 
looked upon his works, and saw that they were 
"good," "very good," — words which suggest 
the idea of his complacency upon their comple- 
tion ; and this, when separated from all connec- 
tion with human infirmity, appears to be a 
perfection, and not a defect. To be incapable 
of complacency and delight, is the character of 
the Supreme Being of Epicurus and of the 
modern Hindoos, of whose internal state, so to 
speak, deep sleep, and the surface of an unruffled 
lake, are favorite figurative representations. But 
of this refinement we have nothing in the Bible, 
nor is it in the least necessary to our idea of 
infinite perfection. And why should not love 
exist in God, in more than a figurative sense ? 
For this affection to be accompanied with per- 
turbation, anxiety, and weak or irrational par- 
tiality, is a mere accident. So we often see it 
in human beings ; but though this affection, 
without any concurrent infirmity, be ascribed to 
God, it surely does not follow that it exists in 

i Melancthon says : " The Lord was very angry with 
Aaron to have destroyed him; and I [Moses] prayed for 
Aaron also at the same time. Deut. is. 20. Let us not eludo 
the exceedingly lamentable expressions which the Holy 
Ghost employs when he says, God was very angry ; and let 
us not feign to ourselves a God of stone, or a Stoical Deity. 
For though God is angry in a different manner from men, 
yet let us conclude that God was really angry with Aaron, 
and that Aaron was not then in [a state of] grace, but 
obnoxious to everlasting punishment. Dreadful was the 
fall of Aaron, who had through fear yielded to the mad- 
ness of the people when they instituted the Egyptian wor- 
ship. Being warned by this example, let us not confirm 
ourselves in security, but acknowledge that it is possible 
for elect and renewed persons horribly to fall," etc. — Loci 
Prozcipui Tlieolegi, 1543. 



CH. IV.] 

him as something in nature " wholly different" 
from love in wise and holy creatures, in angels, 
and in saints. Not only the beauty, the force, 
and the encouragement of a thousand passages 
of Scripture would be lost, upon this hypothe- 
sis, but their meaning also. Love in God is 
something, we are told, which is so called be- 
cause it produces similar effects to those which 
are produced by love in man; but what 
this something is, we are not informed ; and 
the revelation of Scripture as to God is thus 
reduced to a revelation of his acts only, but 
not, in the least, of the principles from which 
they flow. 1 

The same observations may be applied to 
"mercy and revenge" by the latter of which the 
archbishop can mean nothing more than judicial 
vengeance, or retribution, though an equivocal 
term has been adopted, ad captandum. " Repent- 
ing, and changing his resolutions," are impro- 
perly placed among the affections; but, freed 
from ideas of human infirmity, they may be, 
without the least dishonor to the fulness of the 
Divine perfections, ascribed to God in as literal a 
sense as we find them stated in the Scriptures. 
They there clearly signify no more than the 
change which takes place in the affections of God, 
his anger or his love, as men turn from the prac- 
tice of righteousness, or repent and turn back 
again to him ; and the consequent changes in his 
dispensations toward them as their Governor and 
Lord. This is the scriptural doctrine, and there 
is nothing in it which is not most worthy of God, 
though literally interpreted; nothing which is 
not consistent with his absolute immutability. 
He is unchangeably the lover and the rewarder 
of righteousness, unchangeably the hater and 
the judge of iniquity ; and as his creatures are 
righteous or wicked, or are changed from the 



1 "It would destroy the confidence of prayer, and the 
ardor of devotion, if we could regard the Deity as subsist- 
ing by himself, and as having no sympathies, but mere 
abstract relations to the whole family in heaven and earth ; 
and I look upon it as one of the most rational and philoso- 
phical confutations of your system, that it is fitted neither 
for the theory nor the practico of our religion ; and that, 
if wo could adopt it, we must henceforth exchango the 
language of Scripture for the anthems of Epicurus : 

"Omnis enim per se Divfim natura neccsse est, 
Immortali xvo summa cum pace fruatur, 
Semota ab nostris rebus, sojunctaquc longe; 
Nam privata dolore omni, private periculis, 
Ipsa buIs pollens opitras, nihil tndiga nostri, 
Nee- l«ne promeritis capitur, nee tangitur ir;1. 

"It is Id direcl opposition to all snob vain ami skeptical 
■peculations, that Christianity always represents and speaks 
ofthe Deity as participating, so far as infinity and perfec- 
tion may participate, In those feelings and affections which 
belong to our rational natures."— GKOTITJLD'fl Vinttida- 

A)liili>,/i<-tr. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



223 



one state to the other, they become the objects 
of the different regards, and of the different ad- 
ministrations, of the same righteous and gracious 
Sovereign, who, by these very changes, shows 
that he is without variableness, or shadow of 
turning. 

If then there is no reason for not attributing 
even certain affections of the human mind to 
God. when connected with absolute perfection 
and excellence, in their nature and in their ex- 
ercise, no reason certainly can be given for not 
considering his intellectual attributes, repre- 
sented, as to their nature though not as to their 
degree, by terms taken from the faculties of the 
human mind, as corresponding with our own. 
But the matter is placed beyond all doubt by the 
appeal which is so often made in the Bible to 
these properties in man, not as illustrations only 
of something distantly and indistinctly analogous 
to properties in the Divine nature, but as repre- 
sentations of the nature and reality of these 
qualities in the Supreme Being, and which are, 
therefore, made the grounds of argument, the basis 
of duty, and the sources of consolation. 

With respect to the nature of God, it is suffi- 
cient to refer to the passage before mentioned — 
God is a Spirit : where the argument is, that he 
requires not a ceremonial but a spiritual worship, 
the worship of man's spirit ; because he himself 
is a Spibjt. How this argument could be brought 
out on Archbishop King's and Dr. Copleston's 
theory, it is difficult to state. It would be some- 
thing of this kind : God is a Spirit ; that is, he 
is called a Spirit, because his nature is analogous 
to the spiritual nature of man ; but this analogy 
implies no similarity of nature : it is a mere 
analogy of relation ; and therefore, though we 
have no direct and proper notion of the nature of 
God, yet, because he is called a Spirit, " they that 
worship him must worship him in spirit and in 
truth." This is indeed far from being an intelli- 
gible, and it is still less a practical, argument. 

With respect to his intellectual attributes, it is 
argued in Scripture, "He that teacheth man 
knowledge, shall not he knoiv V Here the know- 
ledge of God is supposed to be of the same nature 
as the knowledge of man. This is the sole 
foundation of the argument ; which would have 
appeared indescribably obscure, if, according to 
Archbishop King's hypothesis, it had stood, — 
" Ho that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not 
have somewhat in his nature which, because it 
gives rise to actions similar to those which pro? 
oeed from knowledge, we may call knowledge) 
but of which we have no direct or proper notion ?'' 

With respect to his moral attributes, wo find 
the. same appeals: "Shall not the Judge of all 
the earth do rightf" Here the abstract term 



224 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



right is undoubtedly used in the sense commonly 
received among men, and is supposed to be com- 
prehensible by them. "The righteous Lord 
loveth righteousness." The righteousness in 
man which he loveth, is, clearly, correspondent 
in its kind to that which constitutes him emi- 
nently "the righteous Lord." Still more forci- 
bly, the house of Israel is called upon "to judge 
between him and his vineyard:" he condescends 
to try his own justice by the notions of justice 
which prevail among men ; in which there could 
be no meaning, if this moral quality were not in 
God and in man of the same Jcind. "Hear, now, 
house of Israel, is not my way equal?" But 
what force would there be in this challenge, de- 
signed to silence the murmurs of a people under 
correction, as though they had not been justly 
dealt with, if justice among men had no more 
resemblance to justice in God than a hand to 
power, or an eye to knowledge, or "a map of 
China to China itself?" The appeal is to a 
standard common to both, and by which one 
might be as explicitly determined as the other. 1 
Finally, the ground of all praise and adoration 
of God for works of mercy and judgment — of 
all trust in God, on account of his faithfulness 
and truth — and of all imitation of God in his 
mercy and compassion — is laid in every part of the 
word of God, not surely in this, that there are 
unknown and unapprehended qualities of some 
kind in God, which lead him to perform actions 
similar to those which flow from justice, truth, 
and mercy in men ; but in the consideration that 
he is justice itself, truth itself, and goodness itself. 
The hypothesis is therefore contradicted by the 
Scripture ; and though it has been assumed in 
favor of a great truth — that the prescience of 
God does not destroy the liberty of man — that 
truth needs not so cumbrous and mischievous an 

1 " How can we confess God to be just, if we understand it 
not? But how can we understand him so, but by the mea- 
sures of justice? and how shall we know that, if there be 
two justices, one that we know, and one that we know not, 
one contrary to another ? If they be contrary, they are 
not justice; for justice can be no more opposed to justice, 
than truth to truth: if they be not contrary, then that 
which we understand to be just in us, is just in God; and 
that which is just once, is just for ever in the same case 
and circumstances ; and, indeed, how is it that we are in 
all things of excellency and virtue to be like God, and to be 
meek like Christ ; to be humble as he is humble, and to be 
pure like God, to be just after his example, to be merciful 
as our Heavenly Father is merciful f If there is but one 
mercy, and one justice, and one meekness, then the measure 
of these, and the reason, is eternally the same. If there 
be two, either they are not essential to God, or else not imi- 
table by us ; and then how can we glorify God, and speak 
honor of his name, and exalt his justice, and magnify his 
truth, and sincerity, and simplicity, if truth, and simplicity, 
and justice, and mercy in him is not that thing which we 
understand, and which we are to imitate?" etc. — Bishop 
Taylor's " Ductor DubitantiumP 



[part II. 

auxiliary. Divine foreknowledge and the free- 
dom of human agency are compatible, not be- 
cause foreknowledge in God is a figure of speech, 
or something different in kind to foreknowledge 
in man, but because knowledge, simply con- 
sidered, whether present, past, or future, can 
have no influence upon action at all, and cannot, 
therefore, change a contingent action into a ne- 
cessary one. 

For, after all, where does the great theological 
difficulty lie, for the evasion of which so much 
is to be sacrificed? The prescience, counsels, 
and plans of God, are prescience, counsels, and 
plans which respect free agents, as far as men 
are concerned ; and unless we superadd influence 
to necessitate, or plans to entice irresistibly and to 
entrap inevitably, into some given course of con- 
duct, there is clearly no incongruity between 
these and human freedom. There is a difficulty 
in conceiving how foreknowledge should be abso- 
lute, as there is a difficulty in conceiving how 
God's present knowledge should penetrate the 
heart of man, and know his present thoughts ; 
but neither party argues from the incomprehen- 
sibility of the mode to the impossibility of the 
thing. The great difficulty does not then lie 
here. It seems to be planted precisely in this, 
that God should prohibit many things which he 
nevertheless knows will occur, and in the pre- 
science of which he regulates his dispensations 
to bring out of these circumstances various re- 
sults, which he makes subservient to the displays 
of his mercy and his justice ; and particularly, 
that in the case of those individuals who, he 
knows, will finally perish, he exhorts, warns, 
invites, and, in a word, takes active and influ- 
ential means to prevent a foreseen result. This 
forms the difficulty; because, in the case of man, 
the prescience of failure would, in many cases, 
paralyze all effort, — whereas, in the government 
of God, men are treated, in our views, with as 
much intensity of care and effort, as though the 
issue of things was entirely unknown. But if 
the perplexity arises from this, nothing can be 
more clear than that the question is not, how to 
reconcile God's prescience with the freedom of 
man, but how to reconcile the conduct of God 
toward man, considered as a free agent, with his 
own prescience : how to assign a congruity to 
warnings, exhortations, and other means adopted 
to prevent destruction as to individuals, with the 
certain foresight of that terrible result. In this, 
however, no moral attribute of God is impugned. 
On the contrary, mercy requires the application 
of means of deliverance, if man be under a dis- 
pensation of grace; and justice requires it, if man 
is to be judged for the use or abuse of mercy. 
The difficulty then entirely resolves itself into a 



CH. V.] 



DOCTRINES Or CHRISTIANITY, 



225 



mere matter of feeling, which, of course — as we 
cannot be judges of a nature infinite in perfec- 
tion, though similar to what is excellent in our 
own, nor of proceedings which, in the unlimited 
range of the government of God, may have con- 
nections and bearings beyond all our compre- 
hension — we cannot reduce to a human standard. 
Is it, then, to adjust a mere matter of feeling that 
we are to make these outrageous interpretations 
of the word of God in what he hath spoken of 
himself ? And are we to deny that we have no 
"proper or direct notion of God," because we 
cannot find him out to perfection? This diffi- 
culty, which we ought not to dare to try by 
human standards, is not one, however, we again 
remark, which arises at all out of the relation 
of the Divine prescience to the liberty of human 
actions ; and it is entirely untouched by any part 
of this controversy. We fall into new difficulties 
through these speculations, but do not escape 
the true one. If the freedom of man is denied, 
the moral attributes of God are impugned ; and 
the difficulty, as a matter of feeling, is heightened. 
Divine prescience cannot be denied, because 
the prophetic Scriptures have determined that 
already; and if Archbishop King's interpreta- 
tion of foreknowledge be resorted to, the some- 
thing substituted for prescience, and equivalent to 
it, comes in, to bring us back, in a fallacious 
circle, to the point from which we started. 

It may, therefore, be certainly concluded that 
the omniscience of God comprehends his certain 
prescience of all events, however contingent ; and 
if any thing more were necessary to strengthen 
the argument above given, it might be drawn 
from the irrational, and, above all, the unscrip- 
tural consequences which would follow from the 
denial of this doctrine. These are forcibly 
stated by President Edwards : — 

"It would follow from this notion, (namely, 
that the Almighty doth not foreknow what will 
be the result of future contingencies,) that as 
God is liable to be continually repenting what he 
has done, so he must be exposed to be constantly 
changing his mind and intentions as to his future 
conduct, altering his measures, relinquishing his 
old designs, and forming new schemes and projec- 
tions. For his purposes, even as to the main 
parts of his scheme, namely, such as belong 
to the state of his moral kingdom, must be 
always liable to bo broken through want of fore- 
sight; and ho must be continually putting his 
im to rights, as it gets out of order, through 
the contingence of tho actions of moral agents: 
he must be a Being who, instead of being abso- 
lutely immutable, must necessarily be the subject 
of infinitely the most numerous acts of repent- 
ance, and changes of intention, of any being what- 
15 



soever, for this plain reason, that his vastly ex- 
tensive charge comprehends an infinitely greater 
number of those things which are to him contin- 
gent and uncertain. In such a situation, he 
must have little else to do but to mend broken 
links as well as he can, and be rectifying his dis- 
jointed frame and disordered movements in the 
best manner the case will allow. The supreme 
Lord of all things must needs be under great 
and miserable disadvantages in governing the 
world which he has made and has the care of, 
through his being utterly unable to find out 
things of chief importance which hereafter shall 
befall his system, which, if he did but know, he 
might make seasonable provision for. In many 
cases there may be very great necessity that he 
should make provision, in the manner of his 
ordering and disposing things, for some great 
events which are to happen, of vast and exten- 
sive influence, and endless consequence to the 
universe, which he may see afterward, when it 
is too late, and may wish in vain that he had 
known beforehand, that he might have ordered 
his affairs accordingly. And it is in the power 
of man, on these principles, by his devices, pur- 
poses, and actions, thus to disappoint God, break 
his measures, make him continually to change 
his mind, subject him to vexation, and bring him 
into confusion." 



CHAPTER V. 



ATTRIBUTES OP GOD — IMMUTABILITY, WISDOM. 

Another of the qualities of the Divine nature, 
on which the sacred writers often dwell, is his 
unchangeableness. This is indicated in his august 
and awful title, I am. All other beings are 
dependent and mutable, and thus stand in strik- 
ing contrast to Him who is independent, and, 
therefore, capable of no mutation. "Of old 
hast thou laid the foundation of the earth ; and 
the heavens are the work of thy hands: they 
shall perish ; but thou shalt endure, — yea, all of 
them shall wax old like a garment : as a vesture 
shalt thou change them, and they shall be 
changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years 
shall have no end. He is tho Father of lights. 
with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of 
turning. His counsel standeth fast for ever, and 
tho thoughts of his heart to all generations. His 
mercy ondureth for ever. His righteousness is 
like the great mountains, firm and immovable. 
I am the Lord, I change not." 

Of this truth, so important to religion and to 
morals, there are many confirmations from sub- 
jects constantly open to observation: the general 



226 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



order of nature, in the revolutions of the heavenly 
bodies : the succession of seasons : the laws of 
animal and vegetable production ; and the per- 
petuation of every species of beings ; from which, 
if there be occasional deviations, they prove the 
general regularity and stability of this material 
system, or they would cease to attract attention. 
The ample universe, therefore, with its immense 
aggregate of individual beings and classes of 
being, displays not only the all-comprehending 
and pervading power of God, but, as it remains 
from age to age subject to the same laws, and 
fulfilling the same purposes, it is a visible image 
of the existence of a Being of steady counsels, 
free from caprice, and liable to no control. The 
moral government of God gives its evidence also 
to the same truth. The laws under which we 
are now placed are the same as those which were 
prescribed to the earliest generations of men. 
What was vice then, is vice now ; and what is 
virtue now, was then virtue. Miseries of the 
same kind and degree inflict punishment on 
the former : peace and blessedness, as formerly, 
accompany the latter. God has manifested his 
will to men by successive revelations, the patri- 
archal, the Mosaic, and the Christian, and 
those distant from each other many ages ; but 
the moral principles on which each rests are pre- 
cisely the same, and the moral ends which each 
proposes. Their differences are circumstantial, 
varying according to the age of the world, the 
condition of mankind, and his own plans of in- 
finite wisdom ; but the identity of their spirit, 
their influence, and their character, shows their 
author to be an unchangeable being of holiness, 
truth, justice, and mercy. Vicious men have 
now the same reason to tremble before God as in 
former periods, for he is still "of purer eyes 
than to behold evil;" and the penitent and 
the pious have the same ground of hope, and the 
same sure foundation of trust. These are the 
cautionary and the cheering moral uses to which 
the sacred writers constantly apply this doctrine. 
He is "the Lord, the hope of their fathers;" 
and in all the changes and vicissitudes of life, 
this is the consolation of his people, that he will 
never leave them nor forsake them. "For the 
mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, 
but my kindness shall not depart from thee, nei- 
ther shall the covenant of my peace be removed." 
It is true, that the stability of the Divine opera- 
tions and counsels, as indicated by the laws of 
the material universe, and the revelations of his 
will, only show the immutability of God through 
those periods within which these operations and 
dispensations have been in force ; but in Scrip- 
ture they are constantly represented as the 
results of an immutability which arises out of 



[part n. 

the perfection of the Divine nature itself, and 
which is, therefore, essential to it. "I am the 
Lord, I change not:" he changes not, because he 
is " the Lord." With him there is " no variable- 
ness, neither shadow of turning;" because he is 
"the Father of lights," the source and fulness of 
all light and perfection whatever. Change in 
any sense which implies defect and infirmity, 
and, therefore, imperfection, is impossible to 
absolute perfection ; and immutability is, there- 
fore, essential to his Godhead. In this sense, he 
is never capable of any kind of change whatever, 
as even a heathen has so strongly expressed 
it, ovdeTTore, ovdafijj, ovdajitig aTCkoluoiv, ovde/utav 
ev6ex£Tai. (Plato, in Phced.) For "if we con- 
sider the nature of God, that he is a self-existent 
and independent Being, the great Creator and 
wise Governor of all things : that he is a spiritual 
and simple Being, void of all parts and all mixture 
that can induce a change : that he is a sovereign 
and uncontrollable Being, which nothing from 
without can affect or work an alteration in : that 
he is an eternal Being, which always has and 
always will go on in the same tenor of existence : 
an omniscient Being, who, knowing all things, 
has no reason to act contrary to his first resolves ; 
and, in all respects, a most perfect Being, that 
can admit of no addition or diminution — we 
cannot but believe that both in his essence, in 
his knowledge, and in his will and purposes, he 
must of necessity be unchangeable. To suppose 
him otherwise, is to suppose him an imperfect 
being ; for if he change, it must be either to a 
greater perfection than he had before, or to a 
less : if to a greater perfection, then was there 
plainly a defect in him, and a privation of some- 
thing better than what he had, or was: then 
again was he not always the best, and, conse- 
quently, not always God : if he change to a lesser 
perfection, then does he fall into a defect again, 
lose a perfection he was possessed once of, and 
so ceasing to be the best Being, cease at the same 
time to be God. The sovereign perfection of the 
Deity, therefore, is an invincible bar against all 
mutability; for which way soever we suppose 
him to change, his supreme excellency is nulled 
or impaired by it ; for since in all changes there 
is something from which and something to which 
the change is made, a loss of what the thing had, 
or an acquisition of what it had not, it must 
follow, that if God change to the better, he was 
not perfect before, and so not God: if to be 
worse, he will not be perfect, and so no longer 
God, after the change. We esteem changeable- 
ness in men either an imperfection or a fault: 
their natural changes, as to their persons, are from 
weakness and vanity: their moral changes, as 
to their inclinations and purposes, are from igno- 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY, 



CII. v.] 

ranee or inconstancy, and, therefore, this quality 
is no way compatible with the glory and attri- 
butes of God." — Charnock. 

In his being and perfections God is, therefore, 
eternally the same. He cannot cease to be, he 
cannot be more perfect, because his perfection 
is absolute: he cannot be less so, because he is 
independent of all external power, and has no in- 
ternal principle of decay. "We are not, however, 
so to interpret the immutability of God as though 
his operations admitted no change, and even no 
contrariety ; or, that his mind was incapable of 
different regards and affections toward the same 
creatures under different circumstances. He 
creates and he destroys: he wounds and he 
heals : he works and he ceases from his works : 
he loves and hates; but these, as being under 
the direction of the same immutable wisdom, 
holiness, goodness, and justice, are the proofs, 
not of changing, but of unchanging principles, 
as stated in the preceding chapter. They are 
perfections, not imperfections. Variety of ope- 
ration, the power to commence and cease to act, 
show the liberty of his nature : the direction of this 
operation to wise and good ends shows its excel- 
lence. Thus in Scripture language "he repents" 
of threatened or commenced punishment, and 
shows mercy; or, "is weary of forbearing" with 
the obstinately guilty, and so inflicts vengeance. 
Thus, "he hates the evil doer," and "loveth the 
righteous." That love, too, may be lost, "if the 
righteous turn away from his righteousness;" 
and that hatred may be averted, "when the 
wicked man turneth away from his wickedness." 
There is a sense in which this may be called 
change in God, but it is not the change of im- 
perfection and defect. It argues precisely the 
contrary. If when "the righteous man turneth 
away from his righteousness," God's love to him 
were unchangeable, he could not be the un- 
changeably holy God, the hater of iniquity ; and 
"when the wicked man turneth away from his 
wickedness," and, by the grace of the Holy 
Spirit, becomes a new creature, if ho did not 
become the object of God's love, God would not 
be the unchangeable lover of righteousness. By 
these scriptural doctrines, the doctrine of the 
Divine immutability is not, therefore, contra- 
dicted, but confirmed. 

Various speculations, however, on the Divine 
immutability occur in the writings of divines and 
others, which, though often well intended, ought 
to be received with caution, and sometimes even 
rejected ; ,s bewildering or pernicious. Such arc 
the notions, that God knows every thing by 
intuition: that there is no succession of ideas in 
the Divine mind: that ho can rcccivo no new 
idea: that thore aro no affections in God. for to 



227 



suppose that would suppose that he is capable 
of emotion : that if there are affections in God, 
as love, hatred, etc., they always exist in the 
same degree, or else he would suffer change : for 
these and other similar speculations, recourse 
may be had to the schoolmen and metaphysi- 
cians, by those who are curious in such subjects ; 
but the impression of the Divine character, thus 
represented, will be found very different from that 
conveyed by those inspired writings in which God 
is not spoken of by men, but speaks of himself; 
and nothing could be more easily shown than 
that most of these notions are either idle, as 
assuming that we know more of God than is 
revealed; or such as tend to represent the Divine 
Being as rather a necessary than a free agent, 
and his moral perfections as resulting from a 
blind physical necessity of nature, more than from 
an essential moral excellence ; or, finally, as un- 
intelligible, or absurd. As a specimen of the 
latter, the following passages may be taken from 
a work in some repute. The arguments are 
drawn from the schoolmen, and, though broadly 
given by the author, will be found more or less 
to tinge the remarks on the immutability of God, 
in the most current systems of theology, and 
discourses on the attributes : — 

"His knowledge is independent upon the ob- 
jects known; therefore whatever changes there 
are in them, there is none in him. Things known 
are considered either as past, present, or to 
come, and these are not known by us in the same 
way; for concerning things past it must be said 
that we once knew them ; or of things to come, 
that we shall know them hereafter : whereas God, 
with one view, comprehends all things past and 
future, as though they were present. 

"If God's knowledge were not unchangeable, 
he might be said to have different thoughts or 
apprehensions of things at one time from what 
he has at another, which would argue a defect 
of wisdom. And indeed a change of sentiments 
implies ignorance, or weakness of understanding ; 
for to make advances in knowledge supposes a 
degree of ignorance ; and to decline therein is 
to be reduced to a state of ignorance : now it is 
certain, that both these aro inconsistent with tho 
infinite perfection of the Divine mind ; nor can 
any such defect be applied to him, who is called. 
The only wise God" — Ridgley's Body of Divinity. 

In thus representing the knowledge o\' God as 
"independent of tho objects known;" in order 
to the establishing of such an immutability o£ 
knowledge, as is not only not inconsistent with 
the perfection of that attribute, but without 
which it could not be perfect ; and in denying 
that knowledgo in God has any respect to the 
past, present, and future of things, a very im- 



228 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[part LT. 



portant distinction between the knowledge of 
things possible, and the knowledge of things 
actual, both of which must be attributed to God, 
is strangely overlooked. 

In respect of possible beings, the Divine know- 
ledge has no relation to time, and there is in it 
no past, no future : he knows his own wisdom 
and omnipotence, and that is knowing every 
thing respecting them. But to the possible ex- 
istence of things, we must now add actual exist- 
ence — that commenced with time, or time with 
that. Here then is another branch of the Divine 
knowledge, the knowledge of things actually 
existing, a distinction with which the operations 
of our own minds make us familiar ; and from 
the actual existence of things arise order and 
succession, past, present, and future, not only in 
the things themselves, but in the Divine know- 
ledge of them also ; for as there could be no 
knowledge of things in the Divine mind as actu- 
ally existing which did not actually exist, for 
that would be falsehood, not truth, so if things 
have been brought into actual existence in suc- 
cession, the knowledge of their actual existence 
must have been successive also; for, as actual 
existences, they could not be known as existing 
before they were. The actual being of things 
added nothing to the knowledge of the infinite 
mind as to their powers and properties. Those he 
knew from himself, the source of all being, for 
they all depended upon his will, power, and 
wisdom. There was no need, for instance, to set 
the mechanism of this universe in motion, that 
he might know how it would play, what proper- 
ties it would exhibit, what would be its results ; 
but the knowledge of the universe, as a congeries 
of beings in ideal or possible existence, was not 
the knowledge of it as a real existence : that, as 
far as we can see, was only possible when "he 
spake and it was done, when he commanded and 
it stood fast:" the knowledge of the actual ex- 
istence of things with God is therefore successive, 
because things come into being in succession, 
and, as to actual existences, there is foreknow- 
ledge, present knowledge, and after knowledge, 
with God as well as with ourselves. 

But not only is a distinction to be made between 
the knowledge of God as to things possibly and 
things actually existing, but also between his 
knowledge of all possible things, and of those 
things to which he determined before their 
creation to give actual existence. To deny that 
in the Divine mind any distinction existed between 
the apprehension of things which would remain 
possible only, and things which in their time 
were to come into actual being, would be a bold 
denial of the perfect knowledge of God. 

Here however it is intimated, that this makes 



the knowledge of God to be derived from some- 
thing out of himself ; and if he derive his know- 
ledge from something out of himself, then it 
must be dependent. And what evil follows from 
this ? The knowledge of the nature, properties, 
and relations of things, God has from himself, 
that is, from the knowledge he has of his own 
wisdom and omnipotence, by which the things 
that are have been produced, and from which 
only they could be produced, and in this respect 
his knowledge is not dependent ; but the know- 
ledge that they actually exist is not from himself, 
except as he makes them to exist ; and when they 
are made to be, then is the knowledge of their 
actual existence derived from them, that is, from 
the fact itself. As long as they are, he knows 
that they are : when they cease to be, he knows 
that they are not ; and before they exist, he 
knows that they do not yet exist. His knowledge 
j of the crimes of men, for instance, as actually 
\ committed, is dependent upon the committal of 
i those crimes. He knows what crime is, inde- 
| pendent of its actual existence ; but the know- 
| ledge of it as committed depends not on himself, 
I but upon the creature. And so far is this from 
! derogating from the knowledge of God, that, 
; according to the common reason of things, it is 
thus only that we can suppose the knowledge of 
God to be exact and perfect. 

But this is not all which sustains the opinion 
that there is order and succession also in the 
knowledge of the Divine Being. It is not only 
as far as the knowledge of the successive and 
transient actual existence of things is concerned, 
that both fore and after knowledge are to be 
ascribed to God, but also in another respect. 
Authors of the class just quoted, speak as though 
God himself had no ideas of time, and order, and 
succession : as though past, and present, and to 
come, were so entirely and exclusively human, 
that even the infinite mind itself had not the 
power of apprehending them. But if there be 
actually a successive order of events as to us, and 
if this be something real, and not a dream, then 
| must there be a corresponding knowledge of it 
I in him, and therefore, in all things which respect 
us, a knowledge of them as past, present, or to 
come, that is, as they are in the experience of 
mankind, and in the truth of things itself. 
Besides this, if there be what the Scriptures call 
I il purposes" with God — if this expression is not to 
be ranked with those figures of speech which 
represent Divine power by a hand and an arm — 
then there is foreknowledge, strictly and properly 
so called, with God. The knowledge of any thing 
actually existing is collateral with its existence ; 
but as the intention to produce any thing, or to 
suffer it to be produced, must be before the 



CH. V.] 

actual existence of the thing, because that is 
finite and caused, so that very intention is in 
proof of the precognition of that which is to be 
produced, immediately by the act of God, or 
mediately through his permission. The actual 
occurrence of things in succession as to us, and 
in pursuance of his purpose or permission, is 
therefore a sufficient proof of the existence of a 
strict and proper prescience of them by Almighty 
God, As to the possible nature, and properties, 
and relations of things, his knowledge may have 
no succession, no order of time ; but when those 
archetypes of things in the eternal mind come 
into actual being by his power or permission, it 
is in pursuance of previous intention: ideas of 
time are thus created, so to speak, by the very 
order in which he produces them, or purposes to 
produce them, and his knowledge of them as 
realities corresponds to their nature and relations, 
because it is perfect knowledge. He knows them 
before they are produced, as things which are to 
be produced or permitted : when they are pro- 
duced, he knows them with the additional idea 
of their actual being ; and when they cease to be, 
he knows them as things which have been. 

Allied to the attribute of immutability is the 
liberty of God, which enables us to conceive of 
his unchangeableness in the noblest and most 
worthy manner, as the result of his will, and 
infinite moral excellence, and not as the conse- 
quence of a blind and physical necessity. "He 
doth whatever pleaseth him," and his actions are 
the result of will and choice. This, as Dr. S. 
Clarke has well stated it, follows from his intelli- 
gence ;*i 'or "intelligence without liberty, is really, 
in respect of any power, excellence, or perfection, 
no intelligence at all. It is indeed a conscious- 
ness, but it is merely a passive one ; a conscious- 
ness, not of acting, but purely of being acted 
upon. Without liberty, nothing can, in any tole- 
rable propriety of speech, be said to be an agent, 
or cause of any thing. For to act necessarily, 
is really and properly not to act at all, but only 
to be acted iipon. 

" If the Supreme Cause is not a being endued 
with liberty and choice, but a mere necessary 
agent, whose actions are all as absolutely and 
naturally necessary as his existence, then it will 
follow that nothing which is not could possibly 
hare been, and Unit nothing which is could pos- 
sibly not bave been; and that no mode or cir- 
cumstance of the existence of any thing could 
possibly have been, in any respect, otherwise 
than it now actually is. All which being, evi- 
dently, most false and absurd, it follows, on the 
contrary, that the Supreme Cause is not a mere 
neoessarj agent, but a being endued with liberty 
and choice." 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



229 



It is true that God cannot do evil. "It is 
impossible for him to lie." But "this is a neces- 
sity, not of nature and fate, but of fitness and 
wisdom ; a necessity consistent with the great- 
est freedom and most perfect choice. For the 
only foundation of this necessity is such an un- 
alterable rectitude of will, and perfection of 
wisdom, as makes it impossible for a wise being 
to resolve to act foolishly ; or for a nature 
infinitely good to choose to do that which is 
evil." 

Of the wisdom of God it is here necessary to 
say little, because many instances of it in the 
application of knowledge to accomplish such ends 
as were worthy of himself, and requisite for the 
revelation of his glory to his creatures, have 
been given in the proofs of an intelligent and de- 
signing cause, with which the world abounds. 
On this, as well as on the other attributes, the 
Scriptures dwell with an interesting compla- 
cency, and lead us to the contemplation of an 
unbounded variety of instances in which this 
perfection of God has been manifested to men. 
He is " the only wise God;" and, as to his works, 
"in wisdom hast thou made them all." Every 
thing has been done by nice and delicate adjust- 
ment, by number, weight, and measure. "He 
seeth under the whole heaven, to make the weight 
for the winds, to weigh the waters by measure, to 
make a decree for the rain, and a way for the 
lightning of the thunder." Whole volumes have 
been written on this amazing subject, "the Wis- 
dom of God in the Creation," and it is still un- 
exhausted. Every research into nature, every 
discovery as to the laws by which material things 
are combined, decomposed, and transformed, 
throws new light upon the simplicity of the 
elements which are the subjects of this ceaseless 
operation of Divine power, and the exquisite 
skill and unbounded compass of the intelligence 
which directs it. The vast body of facts which 
natural philosophy has collected with so much 
laudable labor, and the store of which is con- 
stantly increasing, is a commentary on the words 
of inspiration, ever enlarging, and which will 
continue to enlarge as long as men remain on 
earth to pursue such inquiries: " He doeth great 
tilings, past finding out, and wonders without 
number." " Lo, these are parts of his ways, but 
how little a portion is heard of him!" The ex- 
cellent books 1 which havo been written with the 



1 Ray's "Wisdom of Cloil;" Derham's Astro and Physico- 
Theology; Paley's Natural Theology; Sturm's Reflections; 
Kirbyand Spence's Entomology; and, though no1 written 
with any such design, St. Pierre's "Studies of Nature" 
open to the mind that ran Bupply the pious Bentiments 
which the author unfortunately wanted, many striking 
Instances of the \\ Isdom and benevolence of Qod, 



230 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[part n. 



express design to illustrate the "wisdom of God, 
and to exhibit the final causes of the creation 
and preservation of the innumerable creatures 
with -which we are surrounded, must be referred 
to on so copious a subject, and a few general 
remarks must suffice. 

The first character of wisdom is to act for 
worthy ends. To act with design is a sufficient 
character of intelligence; but ivisdom is the fit 
and proper exercise of the understanding ; and, 
though we are not adequate judges of what it is 
fit and proper for God to do in every case, yet, 
for many of his acts, the reasons are at least 
partially given in his own word, and they com- 
mand at once our adoration and gratitude, as 
worthy of himself and benevolent to us. The 
reason of the creation of the world was, the 
manifestation of the perfections of God to the 
rational creatures designed to inhabit it, and to 
confer on them, remaining innocent, a felicity 
equal to their largest capacity. The end was 
important, and the means by which it was ap- 
pointed to be accomplished evidently fit. To be 
was itself made a source of satisfaction. God 
was announced to man as his Maker, Lord, and 
Friend, by revelation ; but invisible himself, 
every object was fitted to make him present to 
the mind of his creature, and to be a remem- 
brancer of his power, glory, and care. The 
heavens "declared his glory," the fruitful earth 
" his goodness." The understanding of man 
was called into exercise by the number and 
variety and the curious structure of the works 
of God : pleasures of taste were formed by their 
sublimity, beauty, and harmony. "Day unto 
day uttered speech, and night unto night showed 
knowledge ;" and God in his law, and in his cre- 
ative munificence and preserving care, was thus 
ever placed before his creature, arrayed in the 
full splendor of his natural and moral attributes, 
the object of awe and love, of trust and of sub- 
mission. The great moral end of the creation 
of man, and of his residence in the world, and 
the means by which it was accomplished, were, 
therefore, displays of the Divine wisdom. 

It is another mark of wisdom when the pro- 
cess by which any work is accomplished is sim- 
ple, and many effects are produced from one or 
a few elements. "When every several effect has 
a particular separate cause, this gives no plea- 
sure to the spectator, as not discovering con- 
trivance ; but that work is beheld with admira- 
tion and delight, as the result of deep counsel, 
which is complicated in its parts, and yet simple 
in its operation, when a great variety of effects 
are seen to arise from one principle operating 
uniformly." (Abernethy on Attributes.) This is 
the character of the works of God. From one 



material substance, 1 possessing the same essen- 
tial properties, all the visible beings which sur- 
round us are made : the granite rock, and the 
central all-pervading sun: the moveless clod, 
the rapid lightning, and the transparent air. 
I Gravitation unites the atoms which compose the 
l world, combines the planets into one system, 
1 governs the regularity of their motions, and yet, 
[ vast as is its power, and all-pervading as its 
influence, it submits to an infinite number of 
modifications, which allow of the motion of indi- 
vidual bodies ; and it gives place to even con- 
trary forces, which yet it controls and regulates. 
One act of Divine power, in giving a certain 
inclination to the earth's axis, produced the effect 
of the vicissitude of seasons, gave laws to its 
temperature, and covered it with increased vari- 
ety of productions. To the composition, and a 
few simple laws impressed upon light, every 
object owes its color, and the heavens and the 
earth are invested with beauty. A combination 
of earth, water, and the gases of the atmo- 
sphere, forms the strength and majesty of the 
oak, the grace and beauty and odor of the rose ; 
and from the principle of evaporation are formed 
clouds which "drop fatness," dews which refresh 
the languid fields, springs and rivers that make 
the valleys, through which they flow, "laugh 
and sing." 

Variety of equally perfect operation is a 
character of wisdom. In the works of God the 
variety is endless, and shows the wisdom from 
which they spring to be infinite. Of that mind 
in which all the ideas after which the innu- 
merable objects composing the universe, must 
have had a previous and distinct existence, 
because after that pattern they were made; 
and not only the ideas of the things themselves, 
but of every part of which they are com- 
posed; of the place which every particle in 
their composition should fill, and the part it 
should act, we can have no adequate concep- 
tion. The thought is overwhelming. This 
variety is too obvious to be dwelt upon ; yet a 
few of its nicer shades may be adverted to, 
as showing, so to speak, the infinite resources 
and the endlessly diversified conceptions of the 
Creator. " Lord, how manifold are thy 
works!" All the three kingdoms of nature 
pour forth the riches of variety: the varied 
forms of crystallization and composition in 
minerals; the colors, forms, and qualities of 
vegetables ; the kinds, and properties, and habits 

1 "A few undecompounded bodies, which may, perhaps, 
ultimately he resolved into still fewer elements, or which 
may be different forms of the same material, constitute 
the whole of our tangible universe of things."— Davy's 
Chymistry. 



CH. V.] 

of animals. The gradations from one class of 
beings to another; from unformed to organic, 
from dead to living, from mechanic sensitiveness 
to sensation, from dull to active sense, from 
sluggishness to motion, from creeping to flying, 
from sensation to intellect, from instinct to rea- 
son, 1 from mortal to immortality, from man to 
angel, from angel to seraph. Between simili- 
tude and total unlikeness, variety has a bound- 
less range ; but its delicacy of touch, so to speak, 
is shown in the narrower field that lies between 
similarity and entire resemblance, of which the 
works of God present so many curious examples. 
No two things appear exactly alike, when even 
of the same kind. Plants of the same species, 
the leaves and flowers of the same plant, have 
all their varieties. Animals of the same kind 
have their individual character. Any two blades 
of grass, or particles of sand, shall show a 
marked difference when carefully compared. 
The wisdom of this appears more strongly 
marked when we consider that important ends, 
both intellectual and practical, often depend 
upon it. The resemblances of various natural 
things, in greater or less degree, become the 
means of acquiring a knowledge of them with 
greater ease, because it is made the basis 
of their arrangement into kinds and sorts, 
without which the human memory would fail, 
and the understanding be confused. The dif- 
ferences in things are as important as their 
resemblances. This is strikingly illustrated in 
the domestic animals and in men. If the indi- 
viduals of the former did not differ, no pro- 
perty could be claimed in them, or when lost 
they could not be recovered. The countenance 
of one human individual differs from all the rest 
of his species : his voice and his manner have 
the same variety. This is not only an illustra- 
tion of the resources of creative power and wis- 
dom, but of design and intention to secure a 
practical end. Parents, children, and friends, 
could not otherwise be distinguished, nor the 
criminal from the innocent. No felon could 



1 It is not intended here to countenance the opinion that 
the difference between the highest instinct and the lowest 
reason is not great. It is as great as tho difference bo- 
tweon an accountable and an unaccountable nature ; between 
a being under a law of force, and a law of moral obligation 
and motive; between a nature limited in its capacity of 
improvement, and one whoso capabilities are unlimited. 
"The rash hypothesis, that tho negro is tho connecting 
link between tho whito man and tho apo, took its rise 
from the arbitrary classification of Linnaus, which asso- 
ciates man and the, ape in the samo order. Tho more 
natural arrangement of later systoms separates them into 
tlic liimanous and quadrumanous orders. If this classifl- 
Catlon had not been followed, it would not havo occurred 
to the most fanciful mind to find in the negro an intor- 
mediate link." — Pkitcuard on Man. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



231 



be identified by his accuser, and the courts of 
judgment would be obstructed, and often ren- 
dered of no avail for the protection of life and 
property. 

To variety of kind and form, we may add 
variety of magnitude. In the works of God 
we have the extremes, and those extremes filled 
up in perfect gradation from magnificence to 
minuteness. We adore the mighty sweep of 
that power which scooped out the bed of the 
fathomless ocean, moulded the mountains, and 
filled space with innumerable worlds ; but the 
same hand formed the animalcule, which requires 
the strongest magnifying power of optical in- 
struments to make it visible. In that too the 
work is perfect. We perceive matter in its 
most delicate organization, bones, sinews, ten- 
dons, muscles, arteries, veins, the pulse of 
the heart, and the heaving of the lungs. The 
workmanship is as complete in the smallest as 
in the most massive of the works of God. 

The connection and dependence of the works 
of God are as wonderful as their variety. 
Every thing fills its .place, not by accident, but 
by design : wise regulation runs through the 
whole, and shows that that whole is the work 
of one, and of one alone. The meanest weed 
which grows, stands in intimate connection with 
the mighty universe itself. It depends upon 
the atmosphere for moisture, which atmosphere 
supposes an ocean, clouds, winds, gravitation : 
it depends upon the sun for color, and, essen- 
tially, for its required degree of temperature. 
This supposes the revolution of the earth, and 
the adjustment of the whole planetary system. 
Too near the sun, it would be burned up; 
too far from it, it would be chilled. What union 
of extremes is here — the grass of the earth, 
"which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into 
the oven," with the stupendous powers of 
nature, the most glorious works of the right 
hand of God ! 

So clearly does wisdom display itself in the 
adaption of means to ends in the visible world, 
that there are comparatively few of the objects 
which surround us, and few of their qualities, 
the use of which is not apparent. In this par- 
ticular, the degree in which the Creator has 
been pleased to manifest his wisdom is remark- 
ably impressive. 

''Among all the properties of things, we dis- 
cover no inutility, no superfluity. Voluntary 
motion is denied to the vegetable creation, 
because mechanical motion answers the pur- 
pose. This raises, in somo plants, a defence 
against the wind, expands others toward the 
sun, inclines them to the support they require, 
and diffuses their socd. If we ascend higher. 



232 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART LT. 



toward irrational animals, we find them possessed 
of powers exactly suited to the rank they hold 
in the scale of existence. 

"The oyster is fixed to his rock: the her- 
ring traverses a vast extent of ocean. But the 
powers of the oyster are not deficient : he opens 
his shell for nourishment, and closes it at the 
approach of an enemy. Nor are those of the 
herring superfluous : he secures and supports 
himself in the frozen seas, and commits his 
spawn in the summer to the more genial influ- 
ence of warmer climates. The strength and 
ferocity of beasts of prey are required by the 
mode of subsistence allotted to them. If the 
ant has peculiar sagacity, it is but a compensa- 
tion for its weakness : if the bee is remarkable 
for its foresight, that foresight is rendered neces- 
sary by the short duration of its harvests. No- 
thing can be more various than the powers 
allowed to animals, each in their order ; yet it 
will be found that all these powers, which make 
the study of nature so endless and so interesting, 
suffice to their necessities, and no more." — 
Sumner's Records of Creation. 

"Equally conspicuous is the wisdom of God 
in the government of nations, of states, and 
of kingdoms ; yea, rather more conspicuous — if 
infinite can be allowed to admit of any de- 
grees — for the whole inanimate creation, being 
totally passive and inert, can make no opposition 
to his will. Therefore, in the natural world, all 
things roll on in an even, uninterrupted course. 
But it is far otherwise in the moral world. 
Here evil men and evil spirits continually op- 
pose the Divine will, and create numberless irre- 
gularities. Here, therefore, is full scope for the 
exercise of all the riches both of the wisdom 
and knowledge of God, in counteracting all the 
wickedness and folly of men, and all the subtlety 
of Satan, to carry on his own glorious design, 
the salvation of lost mankind. Indeed, were 
he to do this by an absolute decree, and by his 
own irresistible power, it would imply no wis- 
dom at all. But his wisdom is shown by 
saving man in such a manner as not to de- 
stroy his nature, nor to take away the liberty 
which he has given him." — Wesley's Sermons. 

But in the means by which offending men 
are reconciled to God, the inspired writers of 
the New Testament peculiarly glory, as the most 
eminent manifestations of the zcisdom of God. 

" For the wonderful work of redemption the 
apostle gives us this note, that 'he hath therein 
abounded in all wisdom and prudence.' Herein 
did the perfection of wisdom and prudence 
shine forth, to reconcile the mighty amazing 
difficulties and seeming contrarieties, real con- 
trarieties, indeed, if he had not some way inter- 



vened to order the course of things, such as 
the conflict between justice and mercy : that 
the one must be satisfied in such a way as 
the other might be gratified ; which could never 
have had its pleasing grateful exercise without 
being reconciled to the former. And that this 
should be brought about by such an expe- 
dient, that there should be no complaint on the 
one hand, nor on the other. Herein hath the 
wisdom of a crucified Redeemer, that whereof 
the crucified Redeemer or Saviour was the 
effected object, triumphed over all the imagina- 
tions of men, and all the contrivances even of 
devils, by that death of his, by which the devil 
purposed the last defeat, the complete destruc- 
tion of the whole design of his coming into the 
world, even by that very means, it is brought 
about so as to fill hell with horror, and heaven 
and earth with wonder." — Howie's Posthumous 
Works. 

"Wisdom, in the treasure of its incompre- 
hensible light, devised to save man, without 
prejudice to the perfections of God, by trans- 
ferring the punishment to a Surety, and thus 
to punish sin as required by justice, and pardon 
the sinner as desired by mercy." — Bates's Har- 
mony. 



-*&■ 



CHAPTER VI. 

ATTRIBUTES OE GOD — GOODNESS. 

Goodness, when considered as a distinct attri- 
bute of God, is not taken in the sense of univer- 
sal rectitude, but signifies benevolence, or a dis- 
position to communicate happiness. From an 
inward principle of good-will, God exerts his 
omnipotence in diffusing happiness through the 
universe, in all fitting proportion, according to 
the different capacities with which he has en- 
dowed his creatures, and according to the direc- 
tion of the most perfect wisdom. "Thou art 
good, and doest good. — The Father of lights, from 
whom cometh every good and perfect gift. — give 
thanks unto the Lord ; for he is good, for his mercy 
endureth for ever." 

This view of the Divine character in the Holy 
Scriptures has in it some important peculiarities, 
too often overlooked, but which give to the 
revelation they make of God a singular glory. 

Goodness in God is represented as goodness of 
nature; as one of his essential perfections, and 
not as an accidental or an occasional affection ; 
and thus he is set infinitely above the gods of 
the heathen, those imaginary creations of the 
perverted imaginations of corrupt men, whose 
benevolence was occasional, limited, and apt to 
be disturbed by contrary passions. 



DOCTRINES Or CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. VI.] 



Such were the best views of pagans ; but to us 
a being of a far different character is manifested 
as our Creator and Lord. One of his appropriate 
and distinguishing names, as proclaimed by him- 
self, signifies "The gracious One," and imports 
goodness in the principle; and another, " The all- 
sufficient and all-bountiful pourer forth of all good;" 
and expresses goodness in action. Another in- 
teresting view of this attribute is, that the good- 
ness of God is efficient and inexhaustible: it 
reaches every fit case, it supplies all possible 
want; and "endureth for ever." Hence the Tal- 
mudists explain "no Shaddat, in Gen. xvii. 1, by 
"in ceternum sufficiens sum" — I am the eternally 
all-sufficient. Like his emblem, the sun, which 
sheds his rays upon the surrounding worlds, and 
enlightens and cherishes the whole creation with- 
out being diminished in splendor, he imparts 
without being exhausted, and, ever giving, has 
yet infinitely more to give. 

A third and equally important representation 
is, that he takes pleasure in the exercise of benevo- 
lence; that "he delightethvn mercy." It is not 
wrung from him with reluctance; it is not 
stintedly measured out, it is not coldly imparted. 
God saw the works he had made, that "they were 
good" with an evident gratification and delight 
in what he had imparted to a world "full of his 
goodness," and into which sin and misery had 
not entered. "He is rich unto all that call upon 
him: — he giveth liberally and upbraideth not: — 
exceeding abundantly above all that we ask 
or think." It is under these views that the 
Scriptures afford so much encouragement to 
prayer, and lay so strong a ground for that abso- 
lute trust in God, which they enjoin as one of our 
highest duties, as it is the source of our greatest 
comfort. 

Another illustration of the Divine goodness, 
and which is also peculiar to the Scriptures, is, 
that nothing, if capable of happiness, comes im- 
mediately from his forming hands without being 
placed in circumstances of positive felicity. By 
heathens, acquainted only with a state of things 
in which much misery is suffered, this view of 
the Divine goodness could not be taken. They 
could not but suppose either many gods, some 
benevolent ; and others, and the greater number, 
of an opposite character ; or one, in whose 
nature no small proportion of malevolence was 
intermixed with milder sentiments. The Scrip- 
tures, on the contrary, represent misery as 
brought into tho world by the fault of creatures ; 
and that otherwise it had never entered. When 
God made the world, ho made it good: when he 
made man, he made him happy, with power to 
remain so. He sows good seed in his field, and 
if tares spring up, "an enemy hath dono this." 



233 



This is the doctrine of inspiration. Finally, the 
Scriptures, upon this lapse of man, and the in- 
troduction of natural and moral evil, represent 
God as establishing an order of perfectly suffi- 
cient means to remedy both. One of his names 
is therefore ^£$13, Goel, "the Redeemer," and 
another, naiia, Bonah, "the Restorer." The 
means by which he justifies these titles, display 
his goodness with such peculiar eminence, that 
they are called "the riches of his grace," and 
sometimes "the riches of his glory." By the in- 
carnation and sacrificial death of the Son of God, 
he became the "Goel," the kinsman, and 
"Redeemer" of mankind: he bought back and 
"restored" the forfeited inheritance of happiness, 
present and eternal, into the human family, and 
placed it again within the reach of every human 
being. In anticipation of this propitiation, the 
first offender was forgiven and raised to eternal 
life, and the same mercy has been promised to 
all his descendants. No man perishes finally but 
by his own refusal of the mercy of his God. 
And though the restoration of individuals is not 
at once followed by the removal of the natural 
evils of pain, death, etc. — for had the whole race 
of man accepted the offered grace, they would 
not, in this present state, have been removed — 
yet beyond a short life on earth these evils are 
not extended, and, even in this life, they are made 
the means of moral ends, tending to a higher moral 
perfection and greater happiness in another. 

Such are the views of the Divine goodness as 
unfolded in the Scriptures : views of the utmost 
importance in an inquiry into the proofs of this 
attribute of the Divine nature which are afforded 
by the actual circumstances of the world. Da- 
dependent of their aid, no proper estimate can 
be taken of the sum of evil which actually 
exists ; nor of its bearing upon the Divine char- 
acter. On these subjects there have been con- 
flicting opinions ; and the principal reason has 
been, that many persons on both sides, those who 
have impugned the goodness of God, and those 
who have defended, it against objections taken 
from the existence of evil, have too often made 
the question a subject of pure "natural theology," 
and have therefore necessarily formed their con- 
clusions on a partial and most defective view of 
the case. This is not indeed a subject for natural 
theology. It is absurd to make it so : and the 
best writers have either been pressed with the 
insuperable difficulties which have arisen from 
excluding the light which revelation throws upon 
the state of man in this world, and his connection 
with another; or, like Paley, they have bursl the 
self-inflicted restraints, and confessed "that 
when we let in religious considerations, we let in 
light upon the difficulties of nature." 



234 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



With respect to the illustrations of the Divine 
goodness which are presented in the natural and 
moral world, there are extremes of opinion on 
both sides. The views of some are too gloomy, 
and shut out much of the evidences of the Divine 
benignity: others embrace a system of Optimism, 
and exclude, on the other hand, the manifesta- 
tions of the Divine justice and the retributive 
character of the universal Governor. The Scrip- 
tures enable us to adjust these extremes, and to 
give to God the glory of an absolute goodness, 
without limiting its tenderness by severity, or 
diminishing its majesty by weakness. 

The dark side of the actual state of the world, 
and of man, its inhabitant, has often, for insidi- 
ous purposes, been very deeply shadowed. The 
facts alleged may, indeed, be generally admitted. 
The globe, as the residence of man, has its in- 
conveniences and positive evils : its variable and 
often pernicious climates : its earthquakes, vol- 
canoes, tempests, and inundations: its sterility 
in some places, which wears down man with 
labor: its exuberance of vegetable and animal 
life in others, which generates disease or gives 
birth to annoying and destructive animals. The 
diseases of the human race : their short life and 
painful dissolution : their general poverty : their 
universal sufferings and cares : the distractions 
of civil society : oppressions, frauds, and wrongs, 
must all be acknowledged. To these may be 
added the sufferings and death of animals, and 
the universal war carried on between different 
creatures throughout the earth. This enumera- 
tion of evils might, indeed, be greatly enlarged 
without exaggeration. 

But this is not the only view to be taken. It 
must be combined with others equally obvious : 
there are lights as well as shadows in the scene, 
and the darkest masses which it presents are 
mingled with bright and joyous colors. 

For, as Paley has observed, "In a vast plu- 
rality of instances in which contrivance is per- 
ceived, the design of the contrivance is bene- 
ficial. 

"When God created the human species, either 
he wished their happiness, or he wished their 
misery, or he was indifferent and unconcerned 
about either. 

"If he had wished our misery, he might have 
made sure of his purpose by forming our senses 
to be so many sores and pains to us, as they are 
now instruments of gratification and enjoyment; 
or by placing us amidst objects so ill suited to 
our perceptions as to have continually offended 
us, instead of ministering to our refreshment 
and delight. He might have made, for example, 
every thing we tasted, bitter : every thing we 
saw, loathsome: every thing we touched, a 



[PART II. 

sting: every smell, a stench; and every sound, 
a discord. 

"If he had been indifferent about our happi- 
ness or misery, we must impute to our good 
fortune, (as all design by this supposition is ex- 
cluded,) both the capacity of our senses to 
receive pleasure, and the supply of external 
objects fitted to produce it. 

"But either of these, and still more both of 
them, being too much to be attributed to acci- 
dent, nothing remains but the first supposition, 
that God, when he created the human species, 
wished their happiness ; and made for them the 
provision which he has made, with that view 
and for that purpose. 

" The same argument may be proposed in dif- 
ferent terms, thus: Contrivance proves design; 
and the predominant tendency of the contrivance 
indicates the disposition of the designer. The 
world abounds with contrivances ; and all the 
contrivances which we are acquainted with are 
directed to beneficial purposes. Evil no doubt 
exists, but is never, that we can perceive, the 
object of contrivance. Teeth are contrived to 
eat, not to ache : their aching now and then is 
incidental to the contrivance, perhaps insepara- . 
ble from it ; or even, if you will, let it be called 
a defect in the contrivance ; but it is not the 
object of it. This is a distinction which well 
deserves to be attended to. In describing im- 
plements of husbandry, you would hardly say 
of the sickle that it is made to cut the reaper's 
hand, though, from the construction of the in- 
strument, and the manner of using it, this mis- 
chief often follows. But if you had occasion to 
describe instruments of torture or execution, 
this engine, you would say, is to extend the 
sinews : this to dislocate the joints : this to 
break the bones : this to scorch the soles of the 
feet. Here, pain and misery are the very ob- 
jects of the contrivance. Now, nothing of this 
sort is to be found in the works of nature. We 
never discover a train of contrivance to bring 
about an evil purpose. No anatomist ever dis- 
covered a system of organization calculated to 
produce pain and disease ; or, in explaining the 
parts of the human body, ever said, This is to 
irritate ; this to inflame : this duct is to convey 
the gravel to the kidneys : this gland to secrete 
the humor which forms the gout. If, by chance, 
he come at a part of which he knows not the 
use, the most he can say is, that it is useless: 
no one ever suspects that it is put there to in- 
commode, to annoy, or to torment." — Natural 
Theology. 

The chief exceptions to this are those of venom- 
ous animals, and of animals preying upon one 
another : on the first of which it has been re- 



CH. VI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



235 



marked, not only that the number of venomous 
creatures is few, but that "the animal itself 
being regarded, the faculty complained of is 
good; being conducive, in all cases, to the de- 
fence of the animal ; in some cases, to the sub- 
duing of its prey ;^and in some probably to the 
killing of it, when caught, by a mortal wound 
inflicted in the passage to the stomach, which 
may be no less merciful to the victim than salu- 
tary to the devourer. In the viper, for instance, 
the poisonous fang may do that which, in other 
animals of prey, is done by the crush of the 
teeth. Frogs and mice might be swallowed alive 
without it. 

"The second case, namely, that of animals 
devouring one another, furnishes a consideration 
of much larger extent. To judge whether, as a 
general provision, this can be deemed an evil, 
even so far as we understand its consequences, 
which probably is a partial understanding, the 
following reflections are fit to be attended to : 

" 1. Immortality upon this earth is out of the 
question. Without death there could be no gene- 
ration, no parental relation, that is, as things are 
constituted, no animal happiness. The particu- 
lar duration of life assigned to different ani- 
mals can form no part of the objection ; because, 
whatever that duration be, while it remains finite 
and limited, it may always be asked, Why is it 
no longer? The natural age of different ani- 
mals varies from a single day to a century of 
years. No account can be given of this ; nor 
could any be given, whatever other proportion 
of life had obtained among them. 

"The term, then, of life in different animals 
being the same as it is, the question is, what 
mode of taking it away is the best even for the 
animal itself. 

"Now, according to the established order of 
nature, (which we must suppose to prevail, or 
we cannot reason at all upon the subject,) the 
three methods by which life is usually put an 
end to, are acute diseases, decay, and violence. 
The simple and natural life of brutes is not often 
visited by acute distempers ; nor could it be 
deemed an improvement of their lot if they were. 
Let it be considered, therefore, in what a condi- 
tion of suffering and misery a brute animal is 
placed, which is left to perish by decay. In 
human sickness or infirmity, there is the assist- 
ance of man's rational fellow-creatures, if not to 
alloviate his pains, at least to minister to his 
necessities, and to supply the place of his own 
activity. A brute, in his wild and natural state, 
does every thing for himself. When his strength, 
therefore, or his speed, or his limbs, or his senses 
fail him, he is delivered ovor either to absolute 
famine, or to the protracted wretchedness of a 



life slowly wasted by scarcity of food. Is it then 
to see the world filled with drooping, superannu- 
ated, half-starved, helpless, and unhelped ani- 
mals, that you would alter the present system 
of pursuit and prey ? 

"2. This system is also to them the spring of 
motion and activity on both sides. The pursuit 
of its prey forms the employment, and appears 
to constitute the pleasure, of a considerable part 
of the animal creation. The using of the means 
of defence or flight, or precaution, forms also 
the business of another part. And even of this 
latter tribe we have no reason to suppose that 
their happiness is much molested by their fears. 
Their danger exists continually; and in some 
cases they seem to be so far sensible of it as to 
provide in the best manner they can against it ; 
but it is only when the attack is actually made 
upon them that they appear to suffer from it. 
To contemplate the insecurity of their condition 
with anxiety and dread, requires a degree of re- 
flection which (happily for themselves) they do 
not possess. A hare, notwithstanding the num- 
ber of its dangers and its enemies, is as playful 
an animal as any other." 

It is to be observed that, as to animals, there 
is still much happiness. 

"The air, the earth, the water, teem with de- 
lighted existence. In a spring noon or a summer 
evening, on whichever side I turn my eyes, my- 
riads of happy beings crowd upon my view. 
'The insect youth are on the wing.' Swarms of 
new-born flies are trying their pinions in the air. 
Their sportive motions, their wanton mazes, their 
gratuitous activity, their continual change of 
place without use or purpose, testify their joy 
and the exultation which they feel in their lately 
discovered faculties. A bee among the flowers, 
in spring, is one of the cheerfullest objects that 
can be looked upon. Its life appears to be all 
enjoyment: so busy and so pleased; yet it is 
only a specimen of insect life with which, by 
reason of the animal being half domesticated, we 
happen to be better acquainted than we are with 
that of others. The whole winged insect tribe, it 
is probable, are equally intent upon their proper 
employments, and, under every variety of con- 
stitution, gratified, and perhaps equally grati- 
fied, by the offices which the author of their 
nature has assigned to them. But the atmo- 
sphere is not the only scene of enjoyment for the 
insect race. Plants are covered with aphides, 
greedily sucking their juices, ami constantly, :is 
it should seem, in tho act of sucking, It cannot 
be doubted that this is a stato of gratifica- 
tion. What else should fix them so close to the 
operation, and so long? Other species are run- 
ning about with an alacrity in their motions 



236 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



which carries with it every mark of pleasure. 
Large patches of ground are sometimes half 
covered with these brisk and sprightly natures. 
If we look to what the waters produce, shoals of 
the fry of fish frequent the margins of rivers, of 
lakes, and of the sea itself. These are so happy 
that they know not what to do with themselves. 
Their attitudes, their vivacity, their leaps out of 
the water, their frolics in it, (which I have no- 
ticed a thousand times with equal attention and 
amusement,) all conduce to show their excess of 
spirits, and are simply the effects of that excess. 

"At this moment, in every given moment of 
time, how many myriads of animals are eating 
their food, gratifying their appetites, ruminating 
in their holes, accomplishing their wishes, pur- 
suing their pleasures, taking their pastimes ! In 
each individual how many things must go right 
for it to be at ease ; yet how large a proportion 
out of every species are so in every assignable 
instant ! Throughout the whole of life, as it is 
diffused in nature, and as far as we are acquainted 
with it, looking to the average of sensations, the 
plurality and the preponderancy is in favor of 
happiness by a vast excess. In our own species, 
in which perhaps the assertion may be more 
questionable than in any other, the prepollency 
of good over evil, of health for example, and 
ease, over pain and distress, is evinced by the 
very notice which calamities excite. What in- 
quiries does the sickness of our friends produce ! 
What conversation their misfortunes ! This shows 
that the common course of things is in favor of 
happiness : that happiness is the rule, misery the 
exception. Were the order reversed, our atten- 
tion would be called to examples of health and 
competency, instead of disease and want." — 
Paley's Natural Theology. 

Various alleviations of positive evils, and their 
being connected with beneficial ends, are also to 
be taken into consideration. Pain teaches vigi- 
lance and caution, and renders its remission in a 
state of health a source of higher enjoyment. 
For numerous diseases, also, remedies are, by the 
providence of God, and his blessing upon the re- 
searches of man, established. The process of 
mortal diseases has the effect of mitigating the 
natural horror we have of death. Sorrows and 
separations are soothed by time. The necessity 
of labor obliges us to occupy time usefully, which 
is both a source of enjoyment and the means of 
preventing much mischief in a world of corrupt 
and ill-inclined men ; and familiarity and habit 
render many circumstances and inconveniences 
tolerable, which, at first sight, we conceive to be 
necessarily the sources of wretchedness. In all 
this there is surely an ample proof and an adora- 
ble display of the Divine benevolence. 



[PART II. 

In considering the actual existence of evils in 
the world, as it affects the question of the good- 
ness of God, we must also make a distinction 
between those evils which are self-inflicted, and 
those which are inevitable. The question of the 
reconcilableness of the permission of evil with the 
goodness of God, will be distinctly considered ; 
but waiving this for the moment, nothing can be 
more obvious than that man himself is chargea- 
ble with by far the largest share of the miseries 
of the present life, and that they draw no cloud 
over the splendor of universal goodness. View 
men collectively. Sin, as a ruling habit, is not 
necessary. The means of repressing its inward 
motions, and restraining its outward acts, are or 
have been furnished to all mankind ; and yet, 
were all those miseries which are the effects of 
voluntary vice removed, how little comparatively 
would remain to be complained of in the world ! 
Oppressive governments, private wrongs, wars, 
and all their consequent evils, would disappear. 
Peace, security, and industry would cover the 
earth with fruits, in sufficient abundance for all ; 
and for accidental wants, the helpless, sick, and 
aged would find a prompt supply in the charity 
of others. Regulated passions, and an approv- 
ing conscience, would create benevolent tempers, 
and these would displace inward disquiet with 
inward peace. Disease would remain, accidents 
to life and limb occur, death would ensue ; but 
diseases would in consequence of temperance be 
less frequent and formidable, men would ordi- 
narily attain a peaceful age, and sink into the 
grave by silent decay. Besides the removal of 
so many evils, how greatly would the sum of 
positive happiness be increased! Intellectual 
improvement would yield the pleasures of know- 
ledge : arts would multiply the comforts and 
mitigate many of the most wasting toils of life : 
general benevolence would unite men in warm 
affections and friendships, productive of innu- 
merable reciprocal offices of kindness: piety 
would crown all with the pleasures of devotion, 
the removal of the fear of death, and the hope 
of a still better state of being. All this is possible. 
If it is not actual, it is the fault of the human 
race, not of their Maker and Redeemer ; and his 
goodness is not, therefore, to be questioned be- 
cause they are perverse. 

But let the world remain as it is, with all its 
self-inflicted evils, and let the case of an indi- 
vidual only be considered, with reference to the 
number of existing evils from which, by the 
merciful provision of the grace of God, he may 
entirely escape, and of those which it is put into 
his power to mitigate, and even to convert to his 
benefit. It cannot be doubted as to any indi- 
vidual around us, that he may escape from 



CH. VI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



237 



the practice and the consequence of every kind 
of vice, and experience the renewing effects of 
Christianity — that he may be justified by faith, 
adopted into the family of God, receive the hal- 
lowing influences of the Holy Ghost, and hence- 
forth walk, not after the flesh, but after the 
Spirit. Why do men who profess to believe in 
Christianity, when employed in writing systems 
of "Natural Theology," which oblige them to 
reason on the Divine goodness, and to meet ob- 
jections to it, forget this, or transfer to some 
other branch of theology what is so vital to their 
own argument? Here the benevolence of God 
to man comes forth in all its brightness, and 
throws its illustrations upon his dealings with 
man. What, in this case, would be the quantum 
of evil left to be suffered by this individual, 
morally so restored and so regenerated? No 
evils, which are the consequences of personal 
vice — often a long and fearful train. No inward 
disquiet, the effect of guilty or foolish passions — 
another pregnant source of misery. No restless 
pining of spirit after an unknown good, creating 
a distaste to present innocent enjoyments — he 
has found that good in the favor and friendship 
of God. No discontent with the allotments of 
Providence — he has been taught a peaceful sub- 
mission. No irritable restlessness under his 
sufferings and sorrows — "in patience he pos- 
sesses his soul." No fearful apprehension of the 
future — he knows that there is a guiding eye 
and a supporting hand above, employed in all his 
concerns. No tormenting anxiety as to life or 
death — "he has a lively hope" of an inheritance 
in heaven. What then of evil remains to him 
but the common afflictions of life, all of which 
he feels, but does not sink under, and which, as 
they exercise, improve his virtues, and, by ren- 
dering them more exemplary and influential to 
others, are converted into ultimate benefits ? Into 
this state any individual may be raised ; and 
what is thus made possible to us by Divine 
goodness is of that attribute an adorable mani- 
festation. 

These views, however, while they remove the 
weight of any objections which may be made to 
the benevolence of the Divine character, taken 
from the existence of actual evils in the world, 
are at as great a distance as possible from that 
theory on this subject which has been denomi- 
nated Optimism. This opinion is, briefly, not 
that the present system of being is the best that 
might be conceived, but the best which the nature 
of things would admit of. That between not 
creating at all, and creating material, and sen- 
tient, and rational beings, as wo find them now 
circumstanced, and with their present qualities, 
there was no choice. Accordingly, with rospect 



to natural evils, the Optimists appear to have 
revived the opinion of the oriental and Grecian 
schools, that matter has in it an inherent defect 
and tendency to disorder, which baffled the skill 
of the great Artificer himself to form it into a 
perfect world ; and that moral evil as necessarily 
follows from finite, and therefore imperfect, 
natures. No imputation, they infer, can be cast 
upon the Creator, whose goodness, they contend, 
is abundantly manifest in correcting many of 
these evils by skilful contrivances, and rendering 
them, in numerous instances, the occasion of 
good. Thus the storm, the earthquake, and the 
volcano, in the natural world, though necessary 
consequences of imperfection in the very nature 
of matter, are rendered by their effects beneficial, 
in the various ways which natural philosophy 
points out ; and thus even moral evils are neces- 
sary to give birth to, and to call into exercise, the 
opposite qualities of virtue, which but for them 
could have no exercise : e. g., if no injuries were 
inflicted, there could be no place for the virtue 
of forgiveness. To this also is added the doctrine 
of general laws : according to which, they argue, 
the universe must be conducted ; but that, how- 
ever well set and constituted general laws may 
be, they will often thwart and cross one another; 
and that from thence particular inconveniences 
will arise. The constitution of things is, how- 
ever, good on the whole, and that is all which can 
be required. 

The apology for the Divine goodness afforded 
by such an hypothesis, will not be accepted by 
those most anxious to defend this attribute from 
atheistic cavils ; and though it has had its advo- 
cates among some who have professed respect for 
the Scriptures, yet it could never have been 
adopted by them, had they not been too regard- 
less of the light which they cast upon these 
subjects, and been led astray by the vain project 
of constructing perfect systems of natural religion, 
and by attempting to unite the difficulties which 
arise out of them, by the aid of unassisted 
reason. The very principle of this hypothesis, 
that the nature of things did not admit of a 
better world, implies a very unworthy notion of 
God. It was pardonable in the ancient advocates 
of the eternity of matter, to ascribe to it an 
essential imperfection, and inseparable evil quali- 
ties ; but if the doctrine of creation in the proper 
sense be allowed, the omnipotence which could 
bring matter out of nothing, was just as able to 
invest it with good as with evil qualities ; and he 
who arranged it to produco so much beauty, har- 
mony, security, and benefit, as we aetuallv find 
in the world, could be at no less to render hi^ 
work perfect in every respect, and needed not 
the balancings and counteraetions of one evil 



238 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART IT. 



against another to effect his benevolent purposes. 
Accordingly, in fact, we find, that when God had 
finished his work, he pronounced it not merely 
good comparatively, but "very good," or good 
absolutely. Nor is it true that, in the moral 
world, vice must necessarily exist in order to 
virtue ; and that if we value the one, we must in 
the nature of things be content to take it with 
the other. We are told, indeed, that no forgive- 
ness could be exercised by one human being, if 
injury were not inflicted by another: no meekness 
could be displayed, were there no anger : no long- 
suffering were there no perverseness, etc. But 
the fallacy lies in separating the acts of virtue 
from the principles of virtue. All the above in- 
stances may be reduced to one principle of 
benevolence, which may exist in as high a degree 
when never called forth by such occasions, and 
express itself in acts quite as explicit in a state 
of society from which sin is excluded. There 
are, for instance, according to Scripture, beings, 
called angels, who kept their first state, and have 
never sinned. In such a society as theirs, com- 
posed probably of different orders of intelligences, 
some more advanced in knowledge than others, 
some with higher and others with lower degrees 
of perfection, "as one star differeth from an- 
other star in glory," how many exercises of 
humility and condescension; how much kind 
communication of knowledge by some, and meek 
and grateful reception of it by others ; how many 
different ways in which a perfect purity, and a 
perfect love, and a perfect freedom from selfish- 
ness may display themselves ! When, therefore, 
the principle of universal benevolence may be 
conceived to display itself so strikingly, in a sin- 
less state of society, does it need injury to call it 
forth in the visible form of forgiveness : anger, in 
the form of meekness : obstinacy, in the form of 
forbearance ? Certainly not ; and it demands no 
effort of mind to infer, that did such occasions 
exist to call for it, it would be developed, not 
only in the particular modes just named, but in 
every other. 

In opposition to the view taken by such theo- 
rists, we may deny that "whatever is, is best" 
We can not only conceive of a better state of 
things as possible, but can show that the evils 
which actually exist, whether natural or moral, 
do not exist necessarily. It is, indeed, a proof 
of the Divine goodness to bring good out of evil : 
to make storms and earthquakes, which are de- 
structive to the few, beneficial to the many : to 
render the sins of men occasions to try, exercise, 
and perfect various virtues in the good ; but if 
man had been under an unmixed dispensation 
of mercy, all these ends might obviously have 
been accomplished, independent of the existence 



of evils, natural or moral, in any degree. The 
true key to the whole subject is furnished by 
Divine revelation. Sin has entered the world. 
Man is under the displeasure of his Maker. 
Hence we see natural evils, and punitive acts of 
the Divine administration, not because God is 
not good, but because he is just as well as good. 
But man is not left under condemnation : through 
the propitiation made for his sins by the sacrifice 
of Christ, he is a subject of mercy. He is under 
correction, not under unmingled wrath, and hence 
the displays of the Divine benevolence which 
the world and the acts of Providence everywhere, 
and throughout all ages, present ; and in pro- 
portion as good predominates, kindness triumphs 
against severity, and the Divine character is 
emblazoned in our sight as one that "delighteth 
in mercy." 

To this representation of the actual relations 
in which the human race stand to God, and to no 
other hypothesis, the state of the world exactly 
answers, and thus affords an obvious and power- 
ful confirmation of the doctrine of revelation. This 
view has been drawn out at length by a late inge- 
nious writer, (Gisborxe's Testimony of Natural 
Philosophy to Christianity.) and in many instances 
with great felicity of illustration. A few extracts 
will show the course of the argument. The first 
relates to the convulsions which have been under- 
gone by the globe itself. 

"Suppose a traveller, penetrating into regions 
placed beyond the sphere of his antecedent 
knowledge, suddenly to find himself on the con- 
fines of a city lying in ruins. Suppose the deso- 
lation, though bearing marks of ancient date, to 
manifest unequivocal proofs that it was not 
effected by the mouldering hand of time, but has 
been the result of design and of violence. Dis- 
located arches, pendant battlements, interrupted 
aqueducts, towers undermined and subverted, 
while they record the primeval strength and mag- 
nificence of the structures, proclaim the deter- 
mined purpose, the persevering exertions, with 
which force had urged forward the work of de- 
struction. Suppose, further, that in surveying the 
relics which have survived through the silent lapse 
of ages, the stranger discovers a present race of 
inhabitants, who have reared their huts amidst 
the wreck. He inquires the history of the scene 
before him. He is informed that the city, once 
distinguished by splendor, by beauty, by every 
arrangement and provision for the security, the 
accommodation, the happiness of its occupiers, 
was reduced to its existing situation by the de- 
liberate resolve and act of its own lawful sove- 
reign, the very sovereign by whom it had been 
erected, the emperor of that part of the world. 
'Was he a ferocious tyrant?' 'No,' is the uni- 



CH. VI.] 

versal reply. 'He was a monarch preeminent 
for consistency, forbearance, and benignity.' 
'Was his judgment blinded, or misled, by erro- 
neous intelligence as to the plans and proceedings 
of his subjects V 'He knew every thing but too 
well. He understood with undeviating accuracy : 
he decided with unimpeachable wisdom.' 'The 
case, then,' cries the traveller, 'is plain: the 
conclusion is inevitable. Your forefathers as- 
suredly were ungrateful rebels ; and thus plucked 
down devastation upon their city, themselves, and 
their posterity.' 

"The actual appearance of the globe on which 
we dwell, is in strict analogy -with the picture of 
our hypothetical city. 

' ' The earth, whatever may be the configura- 
tion, whatever may have been the perturbation 
or the repose, of its deep and hidden recesses, 
is, in its superior strata, a mass of ruins. It is 
not of one land, or of one clime, that the asser- 
tion is made ; but of all lands, but of all climes, 
but of the earth universally. Wherever the 
steep front of mountains discloses their interior 
construction : wherever native caverns and 
fissures reveal the disposition of the component 
materials : wherever the operations of the miner 
have pierced the successive layers beneath 
which coal or metal is deposited, convulsion 
and disruption and disarrangement are visible. 
Though the smoothness and uniformity which 
the hand of cultivation expands over some por- 
tions of the globe, and the shaggy mantle of 
thickets and forests with which nature veils other 
portions hitherto unreplenished and unsubdued 
by mankind, combine to obscure the vestiges of 
the shocks which our planet has experienced — as 
a fair skin and ornamental attire conceal internal 
fractures and disorganizations in the human 
frame — to the eye of the contemplative inquirer 
exploring the surface of the earth, there is 
apparent many a scar testifying ancient concus- 
sion and collision and laceration ; and many a 
wound yet unhealed, and opening into unknown 
and unfathomable profundity. 

"From this universal scene of confusion in 
the superior strata of the earth, let the student 
of natural theology turn his thoughts to the 
general works of God. What are the character- 
istics in which those works, however varied in 
their kinds, in their magnitudes, and in their 
purposes, obviously agree ? What are the char- 
acteristics by which they are all, with manifest 
intention, imprinted ? Order and harmony. In 
every mode of animal life, from the human frame 
down to tho atomic and unsuspected existences 
in water, which have been rendered visible by tho 
lenses of modern science : in tho vegetable world, 
from tho cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop by tho 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



239 



wall : from the hyssop by the wall to the minutest 
plant discernible under the microscope: in the 
crystallizations of the mineral kingdom, of its 
metals, of its salts, of its spars, of its gems : in 
the revolution of the heavenly bodies, and in the 
consequent reciprocations of day, and night, and 
seasons, — all is regularity. In the works of 
God, order and harmony are the rule, irregu- 
larity and confusion form the rare exception. 
Under the Divine government, an exception so 
portentous as that which we have been contem- 
plating, a transformation from order and harmony 
to irregularity and confusion involving the in- 
teguments of a world, cannot be attributed to 
any circumstance which, in common language, we 
term fortuitous. It proclaims itself to have been 
owing to a moral cause ; to a moral cause demand- 
ing so vast and extraordinary an effect ; a moral 
cause which cannot but be deeply interesting to 
man, cannot but be closely connected with man, 
the sole being on the face of this globe who is 
invested with moral agency ; the sole being, there- 
fore, on this globe who is subjected to moral 
responsibility ; the sole being on this globe whose 
moral conduct can have had a particle of even 
indirect influence on the general condition of the 
globe which he inhabits." 

Another instance is supplied from the general 
deluge. After proving from a number of geologi- 
cal facts that such a phenomenon must have 
occurred, the author observes : — 

"Thus, while the exterior strata of the earth, 
by recording in characters unquestionable and 
indelible the fact of a primeval and penal deluge, 
attest from age to age the holiness and the 
justice of God, the form and aspect of its sur- 
face are, with equal clearness, testifying from 
generation to generation his inherent and not 
less glorious attribute of mercy. For they prove 
that the very deluge, in its irruption employed as 
the instrument in his dispensation of vengeance 
to destroy a guilty world, was in its recess so 
regulated by him as to the varying rapidity of 
its subsidence, so directed by him throughout all 
its consecutive operations, as to prepare tho 
desolated globe for the reception of a restored 
succession of inhabitants ; and so to arrange the 
surface as to adapt it in every climate for the 
sustenance of the animals, for the production of 
the trees and plants, and for tho growth and 
commodious cultivation of tho grain and tho 
fruits, of which man, in that particular region, 
would chiefly stand in need. 

"During the retirement of tho waters, when 
a barrier of rocky stratum, sufficiently strong 
for resistance, crossed the lino of descent, a 
lake would bo in consequence formed. These 
memorials of tho dominion of that element which 



240 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



had recently been so destructiYe, remain also as 
memorials of the mercy of the Eestorer of 
natnre ; and, by their own living splendors, and 
by the beauty and the grandeur of their bounda- 
ries, are the most exquisite ornaments of the 
scenes in which we dwell. 

" "Would you receive and cherish a strong im- 
pression of the extent of the mercy displayed in 
the renewal of the face of the earth? Would 
you endeavor to render justice to the subject? 
Contemplate the number of the diversified effects 
on the surface of the globe which have been 
wrought, arranged, and harmonized by the Divine 
benignity through the agency of the retiring 
deluge ; and combine in your survey of them the 
two connected characteristics, utility and beauty 
— utility to meet the necessities and multiply the 
comforts of man ; beauty graciously superadded 
to cheer his eye and delight his heart — with which 
the general aspect of nature is impressed. Ob- 
serve the mountains, of every form and of every 
elevation. See them now rising in bold acclivi- 
ties ; now accumulated in a succession of grace- 
fully sweeping ascents ; now towering in rugged 
precipices ; now rearing above the clouds their 
spiry pinnacles glittering with perpetual snow. 
View their sides, now darkened with unbounded 
forests; now spreading to the sun their ample 
slopes covered with herbage, the summer resorts 
of the flocks and the herds of subjacent regions ; 
now scooped into sheltered concavities ; now en- 
closing within their ranges glens green as the 
emerald, and watered by streams pellucid and 
sparkling as crystal. Pursue these glens as they 
unite and enlarge themselves : mark their rivu- 
lets uniting and enlarging themselves also, until 
the glen becomes a valley, and the valley expands 
into a rich vale or a spacious plain, each varied 
and bounded by hills, and knolls, and gentle up- 
lands, in some parts chiefly adapted for pastur- 
age, in others for the plough : each intersected 
and refreshed by rivers flowing onward from 
country to country, and with streams continually 
augmented by collateral accessions, until they 
are finally lost in the ocean. There new modes 
of beauty are awaiting the beholder: winding 
shores, bold capes, rugged promontories, deeply 
indented bays, harbors penetrating far inland 
and protected from every blast. But in these 
vast and magnificent features of nature, the 
gracious Author of all things has not exhausted 
the attractions with which he purposed to deco- 
rate inanimate objects. He pours forth beauties 
in detail, and with unsparing prodigality of 
munificence, and, for whatever other reasons, for 
human gratification also, on the several portions, 
however inconsiderable, of which the larger 
component parts of the splendid whole consist : 



on the rock, on the fractured stone, on the 
thicket, on the single tree, on the bush, on the 
mossy bank, on the plant, on the flower, on the 
leaf. Of all these works of his wondrous hand, 
he is continually varying and enhancing the 
attractions by the diversified modes and acces- 
sions of beauty with which he invests them — by 
the alternations of seasons, by the countless and 
rapid changes of light and shade, by the character- 
istic effects of the rising, the meridian, the setting 
sun, by the subdued glow of twilight, by the 
soft radiance of the moon — and by the hues, 
the actions, and the music of the animal tribes 
with which they are peopled." 

The human frame supplies another illustra- 
tion : — 

"Consider the human frame naked against the 
elements, instantly susceptible of every external 
impression: relatively weak, unarmed; during 
infancy totally helpless ; helpless again in old 
age : occupying a long period in its progress of 
growth to its destined size and strength: ungifted 
with swiftness to escape the wild beast of the 
forest; incapable, when overtaken, of resisting 
him: requiring daily supplies of food and of 
beverage, not merely that sense may not be un- 
gratified, not merely that vigor may not decline, 
but that closely impending destruction may be 
delayed. For what state does such a frame 
appear characteristically fitted ? For what state 
does it appear to have been originally designed ? 
For a state of innocence and security ; for a para- 
disiacal state ; for a state in which all elements 
were genial, all external impressions innoxious : a 
state in which relative strength was unimport- 
ant, arms were needless ; in which to be helpless 
was not to be insecure ; in which the wild beast 
of the forest did not exist, or existed without 
hostility to man ; a state in which food and beve- 
rage were either not precarious, or not habitually 
and speedily indispensable. Represent to your- 
self man as innocent, and in consequent posses- 
sion of the unclouded favor of his God ; and then 
consider whether it be probable that a frame 
thus adapted to a paradisiacal state, thus desig- 
nated by characteristical indications as originally 
formed for a paradisiacal state, would have been 
selected for the world in which we live. Turn 
to the contrary representation — a representation 
the accuracy of which we have already seen the 
pupil of natural theology constrained, by other 
irresistible testimonies which she has produced, 
to allow: regard man as having forfeited, by 
transgression, the Divine favor, and as placed 
by his God, with a view to ultimate possibilities 
of mercy and restoration, in a situation which, 
amidst tokens and means of grace, is at present 
to partake of a penal character. For such a 



CH. VI.] 



situation, for residence on the existing earth as 
the appointed scene of discipline at once merci- 
ful, moral, and penal, what frame could be more 
wisely calculated ? What frame could be more 
happily adjusted to receive, and to convey, and 
to aid, and to continue the impressions which, 
if mercy and restoration are to be attained, must 
antecedently be wrought into the mind ? Is not 
such a frame, in such a world, a living and a 
faithful witness, a constant and an energetic 
remembrancer, to natural reason, that man was 
created holy ; that he fell from obedience ; that 
his existence was continued for purposes of 
mercy and restoration ; that he is placed in his 
earthly abode under a dispensation bearing the 
combined marks of attainable grace and of penal 
discipline? Is not such a frame, in such a 
world, a preparation for the reception, and a 
collateral evidence to the truth of Christianity?" 
The occupations of man furnish other instances : 
" One of his most general and most prominent 
occupations will necessarily be the cultivation of 
the ground. As the products drawn from the 
soil form the basis not only of human subsistence, 
but of the wealth which expands itself in the 
external comforts and ornaments of social life, 
we should expect that, under a dispensation 
comprehending means and purposes of mercy, 
the rewards of agriculture would be found 
among the least uncertain and the most liberal 
of the recompenses which Providence holds forth 
to exertion. Experience confirms the expecta- 
tion, and attests that man is not rejected of his 
Creator. Yet how great, how continual is the 
toil annexed to the effective culture of the earth ! 
How constant the anxiety lest redundant moist- 
ure should corrupt the seed under the clod ; or 
grubs and worms gnaw the root of the rising 
plant ; or reptiles and insects devour the blade ; 
or mildew blast the stalk ; or ungenial seasons 
destroy the harvest ! How frequently, from these 
and other causes, are the unceasing labors and 
the promising hopes of the husbandman termi- 
nated in bitter disappointment! Agriculture 
wears not, in this our planet, the characteristics 
of an occupation arranged for an innocent and 
a fully favored race. It displays to the eye of 
natural theology traces of the sentence pro- 
nounced on the first cultivator, the representative 
of all who were to succeed : ' Cursed is the 
ground for thy sako. Thorns also and thistles 
shall it bring forth to thee. In sorrow shalt 
thou eat of it all the days of thy life. In the 
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.' It 
bears, in its toils and in its solicitudes, plain 
Indications that man is a sinner. 

"Observations, in substance corresponding 
with those which have been stated respecting 
10 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



241 



tillage, might be adduced concerning the care of 
flocks and herds. The return for labor in this 
branch of employment is, in the ordinary course 
of events, sufficient, as in agriculture, both to 
excite and sustain exertion, and to intimate the 
merciful benignity with which the Deity looks 
upon mankind. But the fatiguing superintend- 
ence, the watchful anxiety, the risks of loss 
by disease, by casualties, by malicious injury 
and depredation, and, in many countries, by the 
inroads of wild beasts, conspire in their amount 
to enforce the truth which has been inculcated. 
They inscribe the page of natural theology with 
the scriptural denunciation, that the labor and 
the pain assigned to man are consequences of 
transgression. 

"Another of the principal occupations of man 
consists in the extraction of the mineral contents 
of the earth, and in the reduction of the metals 
into the states and the forms requisite for use. 
On the toil, the irksomeness, and the dangers 
attendant on these modes of life, it is unnecessary 
to enlarge. They have been discussed, and have 
been shown to be deeply stamped with a penal 
character appropriate to a fallen and guilty race. 

"Another and a very comprehensive range of 
employment consists in the fabrication of manu- 
factures. These, in correspondence with the 
necessities, the reasonable desires, the self-in- 
dulgence, the ingenuity, the caprices, and the 
luxury of individuals, are diversified beyond 
enumeration. But it may be affirmed generally 
concerning manufactures in extensive demand, 
that, in common with the occupations that have 
already been examined, they impose a pressure 
of labor, an amount of solicitude, and a risk of 
disappointment, such as we cannot represent to 
ourselves as probable in the case of beings holy 
in their nature, and thoroughly approved by 
their God. The tendency, also, of such manu- 
factures is to draw together numerous operators 
within a small compass: to crowd them into 
close workshops and inadequate habitations : to 
injure their health by contaminated air, and 
their morals by contagious society. 

"Another line of exertion is constituted by 
trade, subdivided into its two branches, domestic 
traffic and foreign commerce. Both, at the 
samo time that they are permitted, in common 
with the modes of occupation already named, to 
anticipate, on the whole, by the appointment of 
Providence, such a recompense as proves ade- 
quate to the ordinary excitement of industry, 
and to the acquisition of the moderate comforts 
of life, are marked with the penal impress of 
toil, anxiety, and disappointment. Natural the- 
ology still reads the sentenoe, ' [n Hie sweat of 
thy face, in sorrow, shall thou eat bread.' Vigi- 



242 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



lance is frustrated "by the carelessness of asso- 
ciates, or. profit intercepted by their iniquity. 
Uprightness in the dealer becomes a prey of fraud 
in the customer. The ship is -wrecked on a distant 
shore, or sinks with the cargo and with the mer- 
chant in the ocean." — Testimony of Nature, etc. 

Numerous other examples are furnished by 
the author, and might be easily enlarged, so 
abundant is the evidence ; and the whole directly 
connects itself with the subject under considera- 
tion. The voluntary goodness of God is not im- 
pugned by the various evils which exist in the 
world, for we see them accounted for by the 
actual corrupt state of man, and by a righteous 
administration, by which goodness must be con- 
trolled, to be an attribute worthy of God. It- 
would otherwise be weakness, a blind passion, 
and not a wisely regulated affection. On the 
other hand, there is clearly no reason for resort- 
ing to notions of necessity, and defects in the 
essential nature of created things, to prove that 
God is good; or, in other words, according to 
the hypothesis above stated, as good as the stub- 
bornness of matter, and the necessity that vice 
and misery should exist, would allow. His 
goodness is limited by moral, not by physical 
reasons ; but still, considering the globe as the 
residence of a fallen and perverse race, that 
glorious attribute is heightened in its lustre by 
this very circumstance : it arrays itself before 
us in all its affecting attributes of mercy, pity, 
long-suffering, mitigation, and remission. It is 
goodness poured forth in the richest liberality, 
where moral order permits its unrestrained fiow ; 
and it is never withheld but where the general 
benefit demands it. Penal acts never go beyond 
the rigid necessity of the case : acts of mercy 
rise infinitely above all desert. 

The above observations all suppose moral evil 
actually in the world, and infecting the whole 
human race ; but the origin of evil requires dis- 
tinct consideration. How did moral evil arise, 
and how is this circumstance compatible with 
the Divine goodness ? However these questions 
may be answered, it is to be remembered that, 
though the answer should leave some difficulties 
in full force, they do not press exclusively upon 
the Scriptures. Independent of the Bible, the 
fact is that evil exists ; and the Theist who ad- 
mits the existence of a God of infinite goodness, 
has as large a share of the difficulty of recon- 
ciling facts and principles on this subject as the 
Christian, but with no advantage from that his- 
tory of the introduction of sin into the world 
which is contained in the writings of Moses, and 
none from those alleviating views which are af- 
forded by the doctrine of the redemption of man 
by Jesus Christ. 



[part n. 

As to the source of evil, the following are the 
leading opinions which have been held. Neces- 
sity, arising out of the nature of things: the 
Manichcean principle of duality, or the existence 
of a good and an evil Deity : the doctrine that 
God is the efficient cause or author of sin ; and, 
finally, that evil is the result of the abuse of the 
moral freedom with which rational and accounta- 
ble creatures are endowed. With respect to the 
first, as the necessity meant is independent of 
God, it refutes itself. For if all creatures are 
under the influence of this necessity, and they 
must be under it if it arise out of the nature of 
things itself, no virtue could now exist: from the 
moment of creation the deteriorating principle 
must begin its operation, and go on until all 
good is extinguished. Nor could there be any 
return from vice to virtue, since the nature of 
things would, on that supposition, be counter- 
acted, which is impossible. 

The second is scarcely worth notice, since no 
one now advocates it. This heresy, which pre- 
vailed in several parts of the Christian world 
from the third to the sixteenth century, seems 
to have been a modification of the ancient 
Magian doctrine superadded to some of the 
tenets of Christianity. Its leading principle 
was, that our souls were made by the good prin- 
ciple, and our bodies by the evil one : these two 
principles being, according to Mani, the founder 
of the sect, coeternal and independent of each 
other. These notions were supposed to afford 
an easy explanation of the origin of evil, and on 
that account were zealously propagated. It 
was, however, overlooked by the advocates of 
this scheme, that it left the difficulty without 
any alleviation at all; for "it is just as repug- 
nant to infinite goodness to create what it fore- 
saw would be spoiled by another, as to create 
what would be spoiled by the constitution of its 
nature." — King's Origin of Evil. 

The dogma which makes God himself the effi- 
cient cause or author of sin, is direct blasphemy, 
and it is one of those culpable extravagances 
into which men are sometimes betrayed by a 
blind attachment to some favorite theory. This 
notion is found in the writings of some of the 
most unguarded advocates of the Calvinistic hy- 
pothesis, though now generally abandoned by 
the writers of that school. A modern defender 
of Calvinism thus puts in his disclaimer: '-'God 
is not the author of sin. A Calvinist who says 
so I regard as Judas, and will have no com- 
munion with him." x The general abandonment 



l Scott's Bernards on the Eefutation of Calvinism. Pew 
have been so daring, except the grosser Antinomiana of 
ancient and modern times. The elder Calvinists, thongh 
they often made fearful approaches in their writings to 



CH. VI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



243 



of this notion, .so offensive and blamable, renders 
it unnecessary to enter into its refutation. If 
refutation were required, it would be found in 
this, that the first pair who sinned were sub- 
jected to punishment for, and on account of, sin: 
which they could not in justice have been, had 
not their crime been chargeable upon them- 
selves. 

The last opinion, and that which has been 
generally received by theologians, is, that moral 
evil is the result of a voluntary abuse of the 
freedom of the will in rational and moral agents ; 
and that, as to the human race, the first pair 
sinned by choice, when the power to have re- 
mained innocent remained with them. "Why 
is there sin in the world? Because man was 
created in the image of God : because he is not 
mere matter, a clod of earth, a lump of clay, 
without sense or understanding, but a spirit like 
his Creator : a being endued not only with sense 
and understanding, but also with a will exerting 
itself in various affections. To crown all the 
rest, he was endued with liberty, a power of 
directing his own affections and actions, a capa- 
city of determining himself, or of choosing good 
and evil. Indeed, had not man been endued 
with this, all the rest would have been of no 
use. Had he not been a free as well as an in- 
telligent being, his understanding would have 
been as incapable of holiness, or any kind of 
virtue, as a tree or a block of marble. And 
having this power, a power of choosing good and 
evil, he chose the latter, he chose evil. Thus 
' sin entered into the world. ' " — Wesley's Sermons. 



this blasphemy, yet di'd not, openly and directly, charge 
God with being the author of sin. This Arminius, with 
great candor, acknowledges; but gives them a friendly 
admonition to renounce a doctrine from which this asper- 
sion upon the Divine character may, by a good consequence, 
bo deduced: a caution not uncalled for in the present day. 
" Inter omnes blasphemias quae Deo impingi possunt, om- 
nium est gravissima qua author peccati statuitur Deus : 
quas ipsa non parum cxaggeratur, si addatur Deum idcirco 
authorem esse peccati a creatura commissi, ut creaturam in 
seternum exitium, quod illi jam ante citra respectum pec- 
cati destinaverat, damnaret et doducoret: sic enim fuerit 
causa injustitia: homini, ut ipsi reternarn miseriam adferro 
posset. Hanc blasphemiam nemo Deo, quem bonum con- 
cipit, impinget: quare ctiam Manichan, pessimi hau-etico- 
rum, quum causam mali bono Deo adscribcro vcrcrentur, 
alium Deum et aliud principium statuerunt, cui mali 
causam deputarent. Qua de causa, nee ullis Doctoribus 
rel'oi'inaturum Ecclesiarum jure impingi potest, quod Deum 
aulhorem peccati statuant exprofesso ; imo verissimum est 
illoa exprcsso id negaro, et illam calumniam contra alios 
Bgregie confutasse. Attaincn fieri potest, ut quis ex ignc- 
rantia aliquod doceat, ex quo bona consequentia deducatur, 
Deum per illam doctrinam statui authorem peccati. Hoc si 
flat, turn quidem istius doctrinal professoribus, non est im- 
liiihjDiilum duod Deum authorem peccati faciant, sod tantum 
Caonendi ut doctrinam islam, undo id bona consoquentia 
doducitur, deserant ot abjiciaut." 



This account unquestionably agrees with the 
history of the fact of the fall and corruption of 
man. Like every thing else in its kind, he was 
pronounced "very good:" he was placed under 
a law of obedience which, if he had not had the 
power to observe it. would have been absurd ; 
and that he had also the power to violate it, is 
equally clear from the prohibition under which 
he was laid, and its accompanying penalty. The 
conclusion therefore is, that " God made man 
upright," with power to remain so, and, on the 
contrary, to sin and fall. 

Nor was this liberty to sin inconsistent with 
that perfect purity and moral perfection with 
which he was endowed at his creation. Many 
extravagant descriptions have been indulged 
in by some divines, as to the intellectual and 
moral endowments of the nature 1 of the first 
man, which, if admitted to the full extent, would 
render it difficult to conceive how he could pos- 
sibly have fallen by any temptations which his 
circumstances allowed, or indeed how, in his 
case, temptation could at all exist. His state 
was high and glorious, but it was still a state, 
not of reward, but of trial, and his endowments 
and perfections were therefore suited to it. It 
is, indeed, perhaps, going much too far to state 
that all created rational beings, being finite, and 
endowed, also, with liberty of choice, must, 
under all circumstances, be liable to sin. It is 
argued by Archbishop King that "God, though 
he be omnipotent, cannot make any created be- 
ing absolutely perfect — for whatever is abso- 
lutely perfect must necessarily be self-existent— 
but it is included in the very notion of a crea- 
ture, as such, not to exist of itself, but of God. 
An absolutely perfect creature, therefore, im- 
plies a contradiction ; for it would be of itself 
and not of itself at the same time. Absolute 
perfection, therefore, is peculiar to God; and 
should he communicate his own peculiar per- 
fection to another, that other would be God. 
Imperfection must, therefore, be tolerated iu 
creatures, notwithstanding the Divine omnipo- 
tence and goodness — for contradictions are no 
objects of power. God indeed might have re- 
frained from acting, and continued alone self- 
sufficient and perfect to all eternity ; but infinite 
goodness would by no means allow of this ; and, 
therefore, since it obliged him to produce ex- 
ternal things, which things could not possibly be 
perfect, it preferred theso imperfect things to 
none at all ; from whence it follows that imper- 
fection arose from the infinity of Divine good- 
ness." — Origin of Evil. 

This in part may be allowed. Imperfection 
must, in comparison of God, ami of the creature's 
own capacity of improvement, remain the cha- 



244 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



racter of a finite being ; but it is not so clear that 
this imperfection must, at all times, and through- 
out the whole course of existence, imply liability 
to sin. God is free, and yet cannot "be tempted 
of evil." "It is impossible for God to lie;" not 
for want of natural freedom, but because of an 
absolute moral perfection. Liberty and impecca- 
bility imply, therefore, no contradiction ; and it 
cannot, even on rational grounds, be concluded, 
that a free finite moral agent may not, by the 
special favor of God, be placed in circumstances 
in which sinning is morally impossible. Revela- 
tion undoubtedly gives this promise to the faith- 
ful, in another state : a consummation to be 
effected, not by destroying their natural liberty, 
but by improving their moral condition. This 
was not however the case with man at his first 
creation, and Sharing his abode in paradise. His 
state was not that of the glorified, for it was 
probationary, and it was yet inconceivably ad- 
vanced above the present state of man; since, 
with a nature unstained and uncorrupted, it was 
easy for him to have maintained his moral recti- 
tude, and to have improved and confirmed it. 
Obedience with him had not those clogs, and 
internal oppositions, and outward counterac- 
tions, as with us. It was, however, a state which 
required watchfulness, and effort, and prayer, and 
denial of the appetites and passions, since Eve 
fell by her appetite, and Adam by his passion; 
and slight as, in the first instance, every external 
influence which tended to depress the energy of 
the spiritual life, and lead man from God, might 
be, and easy to be resisted, it might become a 
step to a further defection, and the nucleus of a 
fatal habit. Thus says Bishop Butler, with his 
accustomed acuteness : " Mankind, and perhaps 
ail finite creatures, from the very constitution 
of their nature, before habits of virtue, are defi- 
cient, and in danger of deviating from what is 
right; and therefore stand in need of virtuous 
habits, for a security against this danger. For, 
together with the general principle of moral 
understanding, we have in our inward frame 
various affections toward particular external ob- 
jects. These affections are naturally, and of 
right, subject to the government of the moral 
principle, as to the occasions upon which they 
may be gratified : as to the times, degrees, and 
manner in which the objects of them may be 
pursued; but then the principle of virtue can 
neither excite them, nor prevent their being ex- 
cited. On the contrary, they are naturally felt, 
when the objects of them are present to the 
mind, not only before all consideration, whether 
they can be obtained by lawful means, but after 
it is found they cannot. For the natural objects 
of affection continue so : the necessaries, conve- 



niences, and pleasures of life, remain naturally 
desirable ; though they cannot be obtained inno- 
cently; nay, though they cannot possibly be 
obtained at all. And when the object of any 
affection whatever cannot be obtained without 
unlawful means, but may be obtained by them, 
such affection, through its being excited, and its 
continuance some time in the mind, be it as inno- 
cent as it is natural and necessary, yet cannot 
but be conceived to have a tendency to incline 
persons to venture upon such unlawful means, 
and, therefore, must be conceived as putting 
them in some danger of it. Now, what is the 
general security against this danger, against 
their actually deviating from right? As the 
danger is, so also must the security be, from 
within — from the practical principle of virtue. 
And the strengthening or improving this princi- 
ple, considered as practical, or as a principle of 
action, will lessen the danger, or increase the 
security against it. And this moral principle is 
capable of improvement, by proper discipline 
and exercise : by recollecting the practical im- 
pressions which example and experience have 
made upon us ; and, instead of following humor 
and mere inclination, by continually attending to 
the equity and right of the case, in whatever we 
are engaged, be it in greater or less matters, 
and accustoming ourselves always to act upon 
it; as being itself the just and natural motive 
of action, and as this moral course of behavior 
must necessarily, under Divine government, be 
our final interest. Thus the principle of virtue, 
improved into habit, of which improvement we are 
thus capable, will plainly be, in proportion to the 
strength of it, a security against the danger which 
finite creatures are in, from the very nature of pro- 
pension, or particular affections. 

"From these things we may observe, and it 
will further show this our natural and original 
need of being improved by discipline, how it 
comes to pass that creatures made upright fall ; 
and that those who preserve their uprightness, 
by so doing, raise themselves to a more secure 
state of virtue. To say that the former is 
accounted for by the nature of liberty, is to say 
no more than that an event's actually happening 
is accounted for by a mere possibility of its hap- 
pening. But it seems distinctly conceivable from 
the very nature of particular affections or pro- 
pensions. For, suppose creatures intended for 
such a particular state of life for which such 
propensions were necessary : suppose them en- 
dued with such propensions, together with moral 
understanding, as well including a practical sense 
of virtue, as a speculative perception of it ; and 
that all these several principles, both natural and 
moral, forming an inward constitution of mind, 



CH. VI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



245 



were in the most exact proportion possible : i. e., 
in a proportion the most exactly adapted to their 
intended state of life : such creatures would be 
made upright, or finitely perfect. Now, particu- 
lar propensions, from their very nature, must be 
felt, the objects of them being present ; though 
they cannot be gratified at all, or not with the 
allowance of the moral principle. But if they 
can be gratified without its allowance, or by con- 
tradicting it, then they must be conceived to 
have some tendency, in how low a degree soever, 
yet some tendency, to induce persons to such 
forbidden gratification. This tendency, in some 
one particular propension, may be increased, by 
the greater frequency of occasions naturally ex- 
citing it, than of occasions exciting others. The 
least voluntary indulgence in forbidden circum- 
stances, though but in thought, will increase this 
wrong tendency ; and may increase it further, 
till, peculiar conjunctures perhaps conspiring, it 
becomes effect; and danger of deviating from 
right, ends in actual deviation from it : a danger 
necessarily arising from the very nature of pro- 
pension; and which, therefore, could not have 
been prevented, though it might have been 
escaped, or got innocently through. The case 
would be, as if we were to suppose a straight 
path marked out for a person, in which such a 
degree of attention would keep him steady ; but 
if he would not attend in this degree, any one 
of a thousand objects, catching his eye, might 
lead him out of it. Now, it is impossible to say 
how much even the first full overt act of irregu- 
larity might disorder the inward constitution, 
unsettle the adjustments, and alter the propor- 
tions which formed it, and in which the upright- 
ness of its make consisted; but repetition of 
irregularities would produce habits. And thus 
the constitution would be spoiled, and creatures 
made upright become corrupt and depraved in 
their settled character, proportionably to their 
repeated irregularities in occasional acts. But, 
on the contrary, these creatures might have im- 
proved and raised themselves to a higher and 
more secure state of virtue by the contrary be- 
havior: by steadily following the moral prin- 
ciple, supposed to be one part of their nature ; 
and thus withstanding that unavoidable danger 
of defection, which necessarily arose from pro- 
pension, the other part of it. For by thus pre- 
serving their integrity for some time, their 
danger would lessen ; since propensions, by 
being inured to submit, would do it more easily 
and of course ; and their security against this 
lessening danger would increase, since the moral 
principle would gain additional strength by ex- 
ercise; both which things are implied in the 
notion of virtuous habits. Thus, then, vicious 



indulgence is not only criminal in itself, but also 
depraves the inward constitution and character. 
And virtuous self-government is not only right 
in itself, but also improves the inward constitu- 
tion or character ; and may improve it to such a 
degree, that though we should suppose it im- 
possible for particular affections to be absolutely 
coincident with the moral principle ; and conse- 
quently should allow that such creatures as have 
been above supposed would for ever remain de- 
fectible ; yet their danger of actually deviating 
from right may be almost infinitely lessened, and 
they fully fortified against what remains of it — 
if that may be called danger against which there 
is an adequate effectual security. But still, this 
their higher perfection may continue to consist 
in habits of virtue formed in a state of discipline, 
and this their more complete security remain to 
proceed from them. And thus it is plainly con- 
ceivable that creatures without blemish, as they 
came out of the hands of God, may be in danger 
of going wrong ; and so may stand in need of 
the security of virtuous habits, additional to the 
moral principle wrought into their natures by 
him. That which is the ground of their danger, 
or their want of security, may be considered as 
a deficiency in them, to which virtuous habits 
are the natural supply. And as they are natur- 
ally capable of being raised and improved by 
discipline, it may be a thing fit and requisite 
that they should be placed in circumstances with 
an eye to it : in circumstances peculiarly fitted 
to be, to them, a state of discipline for their im- 
provement in virtue." — Analogy. 

It is easy therefore to conceive, without sup- 
posing that moral liberty in all cases necessarily 
supposes liability to commit sin, how a perfectly 
pure and upright being might be capable of dis- 
obedience, though continued submission to God 
and to his law was not only possible, but practi- 
cable without painful and difficult effort. To be 
in a state of trial, the moral as well as the natural 
freedom to choose evil was essential ; and as far 
as this fact bears upon the question of the Divine 
goodness, it resolves itself into this, "whether 
it was inconsistent with that attribute of the 
Divine nature to endow man with this liberty, or 
in other words to place him in a slate of trial on 
earth, before his admission into that state from 
which the possibility of evil is for ever excluded." 
To this unassisted reason could frame no answer. 
By the aid of revelation we are assured, that 
benevolence is so absolutely the motive and the 
end of the Divine providence, that thus to dis- 
pose of man, and consequently to permit his 
voluntary fall, is consistent with it ; but in what 
in, inner it is SO, is involved in obscurity ; and the 
tact being established, we may 'well be content 



246 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



to wait for the development of that great process 
•which shall "justify the ways of God to man," 
without indulging in speculations which, for 
want of all the facts of the case before us, must 
always be to a great extent without foundation, 
and may even seriously mislead. This we know, 
that the entrance of sin into the world has given 
occasion for the tenderest displays of the Divine 
goodness in the gift of the great Restorer ; and 
opened, to all who will avail themselves of the 
blessing, the gate to "glory, honor, immortality, 
and eternal life." The observations of Doddridge 
on this subject have a commendable modesty : 

"It will still be demanded, Why was moral 
evil permitted ? To this it is generally answered, 
that it was the result of natural liberty ; and it 
was fit that among all the other classes and 
orders of beings, some should be formed pos- 
sessed of this, as it conduces to the harmony of 
the universe, and to the beautiful variety of 
beings in it. Yet still it is replied, "Why did not 
God prevent this abuse of liberty ? One would 
not willingly say that he is not able to do it, 
without violating the nature of his creatures ; 
nor is it possible that any should prove this. It 
is commonly said that he permitted it, in order 
to extract from thence greater good. But it may 
be further queried, Could he not have produced 
that greater good without such a means ? Could 
he not have secured among all his creatures uni- 
versal good and universal happiness, in full con- 
sistency with the liberty he had given them ? I 
acknowledge I see no way of answering this 
question but by saying, he had indeed a natural 
power of doing it, but that he saw it better not 
to do it, though the reasons upon which it ap- 
peared preferable to him are entirely unknown 
to us." — Doddridge's Lectures. 

The mercy of God is not a distinct attribute 
of his nature, but a mode of his goodness. It is 
the disposition whereby he is inclined to succor 
those who are in misery, and to pardon those 
who have offended. "In Scripture language," 
says Archbishop Tillotson, "it is usually set forth 
to us by the expressions of pity and compassion ; 
which is an affection that causes a sensible com- 
motion and disturbance in us, upon the appre- 
hension of some great evil either threatening or 
oppressing another: pursuant to which, God is 
said to be grieved and afflicted for the miseries of 
men. But though God be pleased in this manner 
to convey an idea of his mercy and tenderness 
to us, yet we must take heed how we clothe the 
Divine nature with the infirmities of human 
passions : we must not measure the perfections 
of God by the expressions of his condescension ; 
and, because he stoops to our weakness, level him 
to our infirmities. When therefore God is said 



to pity us, or to be grieved at our afflictions, we 
must be careful to remove the imperfection of the 
passion, the commotion and disturbance that it 
occasions, and then we may conceive as strongly 
of the Divine mercy and compassion as we please ; 
and that it exerts itself in a very tender and 
affectionate manner. 

"And therefore the Holy Scriptures not only 
tell us that 'the Lord our God is a merciful 
God,' but that 'he is the Father of mercies, and 
the God of all comfort:' that he 'delights in 
mercy, — waits to be gracious, — rejoices over us 
to do good, — and crowneth us with his loving- 
kindness:' to denote the greatness and continu- 
ance of this affection, they not only tell us that 
'his mercy is above the heavens,' — that it extends 
itself ' over all his works, — is laid up in store for 
a thousand generations, and is to endure for ever 
and ever:' to express the intenseness of it, they 
not only tell us of the ' multitude of his tender 
mercies, — the sounding of his bowels,' the re- 
lentings of his heart, and 'the kindlings of his 
repentance;' but, to give us as sensible an idea 
as possible of the compassions of God, they com- 
pare them to the tenderest affections among 
men: to that of a father toward his children: 
'As a father pitieth his children, so the Lord 
pitieth them that fear him;' nay, to the compas- 
sion of a mother toward her infant : ' Can a wo- 
man forget her sucking child, that she should 
not have compassion on the son of her womb ? 
Yea, she may forget' — it is possible, though very 
unlikely ; but though a mother may become un- 
natural, yet God cannot prove unmerciful. 

"In short, the Scriptures everywhere magnify 
the mercy of God, and speak of it with all pos- 
sible advantage, as if the Divine nature, which 
does in all perfections excel every other thing, 
did in this perfection excel itself; and of this we 
have a further conviction, if we lift but up our 
eyes to God, and then, turning them upon our- 
selves, begin to consider how many evils and 
miseries, that every day we are exposed to, by 
his preventing mercy are hindered, or, when they 
were coming upon us, stopped or turned another 
way : how oft our punishment has he deferred by 
his forbearing mercy, or, when it was necessary 
for our chastisement, mitigated and made light : 
how oft we have been supported in our afflictions 
by his comforting mercy, and visited with the 
light of his countenance, in the exigencies of our 
soul and the gloominess of despair : how oft we 
have been supplied by his relieving mercy in our 
wants, and, when there was no hand to succor, 
and no soul to pity us, his arm has been stretched 
out to lift us from the mire and clay, and, by a 
providential train of events, brought about our 
sustenance and support; and, above all, how 



CH. VII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



247 



daily, how hourly, how minutely we offend against 
him, and yet, by the power of his pardoning 
mercy, we are still alive ; for, considering the 
multitude and heinousness of our provocations,' 
'it is of his mercy alone that we are not con- 
sumed, and because his compassions fail not. 
Whoso is wise will ponder these things, and he 
will understand the loving-kindness of the Lord.' " 
— Sermons. 



CHAPTER VII. 

ATTRIBUTES OP GOD — HOLINESS. 

In creatures, holiness is conformity to the will 
of God, as expressed in his laws, and consists in 
abstinence from every thing which has been com- 
prehended under the general term of sin, and in 
the habit and practice of righteousness. Both 
these terms are properly understood to include 
various principles, affections, and acts, which, 
considered separately, are regarded as vices or 
virtues ; and, collectively, as constituting a holy 
or a polluted character. Our conception of holi- 
ness in creatures, both in its negative and its 
positive import, is therefore explicit : it is deter- 
mined by the will of God. But when we speak 
of God, we speak of a Being who is a law to 
himself, and whose conduct cannot be referred to 
a higher authority than his own. This circum- 
stance has given rise to various opinions on the 
subject of the holiness of the Divine Being, and 
to different modes of stating this glorious attri- 
bute of his moral nature. But without conduct- 
ing the reader into the profitless question, 
whether there is a fixed and unalterable nature 
and fitness of things, independent of the Divine 
will on the one hand ; or, on the other, whether 
good and evil have their foundation, not in the 
nature of things, but only in the Divine will, 
which makes them such, there is a method, less 
direct it may be, but more satisfactory, of 
assisting our thoughts on this subject. 

It is certain that various affections and actions 
have been enjoined upon all rational creatures 
under the general name of righteousness, and 
that their contraries havo been prohibited. It is 
a matter also of constant experience and obser- 
vation, that the good of society is promoted only 
by the one, and injured by the other ; and also 
that every individual derives, by the \ery con- 
stitution of his nature, benefit and happiness 
from rectitude, injury and misery from vice. 
This constitution of human nature is therefore 
an indication that the Maker and llulcr of men 
formed them with the intent that they should 
avoid vice, and practice virtue; and that the 



former is the object of his aversion, the latter 
of his regard. On this principle all the laws, 
which in his legislative character Almighty God 
has enacted for the government of mankind, 
have been constructed. "The law is holy, and 
the commandment holy, just, and good." In the 
administration of the world, where God is so 
often seen in his judicial capacity, the punish- 
ments which are inflicted, indirectly or imme- 
diately, upon men, clearly tend to discourage and 
prevent the practice of evil. "Above all, the 
gospel, that last and most perfect revelation of 
the Divine will, instead of giving the professors 
of it any allowance to sin, because grace has 
abounded, (which is an injurious imputation cast 
upon it by ignorant and impious minds, ) its chief 
design is to establish that great principle, God's 
moral purity, and to manifest his abhorrence of 
sin, and inviolable regard to purity and virtue in 
his reasonable creatures. It was for this he sent 
his Son into the world to turn men from their 
iniquities, and bring them back to the paths of 
righteousness. For this, the blessed Jesus sub- 
mitted to the deepest humiliations and most 
grievous sufferings. He gave himself (as St. 
Paul speaks) for his Church, that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it, that he might present it 
to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or 
wrinkle, but that it should be holy and without 
blemish ; or, as it is elsewhere expressed, he gave 
himself for us, to redeem us from our iniquities, 
and to purify unto himself a peculiar people, 
zealous of good works. In all this he is said to 
have done the will of his Father, and glorified 
him, that is, restored and promoted in the world 
the cause of virtue and righteousness, which is 
the glory of God. And his life was the visible 
image of the Divine sanctity, proposed as a 
familiar example to mankind, for he was holy, 
harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. 
He did no sin, neither was guile found in his 
mouth. And as Christianity appears, by the 
character of its author, and by his actions and 
sufferings, to be a designed evidence of the holi- 
ness of God, or of his aversion to sin, and his 
gracious desire to turn men from it, so the insti- 
tution itself is perfectly pure, it contains the 
clearest and most lively descriptions of moral 
virtue, and the strongest motives to the practice 
of it. It promises, as from God, the kindest 
assistance to men, for making the gospel effectual 
to renew them in the spirit of their minds, and 
to reform their lives, by his Spirit sent down 
from heaven on purpose to convince the world 
of sin, and righteousness, and judgment : to 
enlighten them who were in darkness, ami turn 
the disobedient to the wisdom of the jnstj to 
strengthen its converts to true religion, unto all 



248 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



obedience, and long-suffering, and patience, to 
enable them to resist temptation, to abound in 
the fruits of righteousness, and perfect holiness 
in the fear of God." — Abernetht's Sermons. 

Since, then, it is so manifest that "the Lord 
loveth righteousness, and hateth iniquity," it 
must be necessarily concluded that this prefer- 
ence of the one, and hatred of the other, flow 
from some principle in his very nature. "That 
he is the righteous Lord. Of purer eyes than to 
behold evil, — one who cannot look upon iniquity." 
This principle is holiness, an attribute which, in 
the most emphatic manner, is assumed by him- 
self, and attributed to him, both by adoring 
angels in their choirs, and by inspired saints in 
their worship. He is, by his own designation, 
11 the Holt One of Israel:" the seraphs in the 
vision of the prophet cry continually, "Holy, 
holt, holt, is the Lord of hosts: the whole 
earth is full of his glory :" thus summing up all 
his glories in this sole moral perfection. The 
language of the sanctuary on earth is borrowed 
from that of heaven. "Who shall not fear thee, 
Lord, and glorify thy name, for thou only art 

HOLT." 

If then there is this principle in the Divine 
mind, which leads him to prescribe, love, and 
reward truth, justice, benevolence, and every 
other virtuous affection and habit in his creatures 
which we sum up in the term holiness ; and to 
forbid, restrain, and punish their opposites ; that 
principle, being essential in him, a part of his very 
nature and Godhead, must be the spring and 
guide of his own conduct ; and thus we conceive 
without difficulty of the essential rectitude or 
holiness of the Divine nature, and the absolutely 
pure and righteous character of his administra- 
tion: "In him there can be no malice, or envy, 
or hatred, or revenge, or pride, or cruelty, or 
tyranny, or injustice, or falsehood, or unfaithful- 
ness ; and if there be any thing beside which im- 
plies sin, and vice, and moral imperfection, 
holiness signifies that the Divine nature is at an 
infinite distance from it." (Tillotson.) Nor are 
we only to conceive of this quality negatively, 
but positively also, as "the actual, perpetual 
rectitude of all his volitions, and all the works 
and actions which are consequent thereupon ; and 
an eternal propension thereto, and love thereof, 
by which it is altogether impossible to that will 
that it should ever vary." — Howe. 

This attribute of holiness exhibits itself in two 
great branches, justice and truth, which are some- 
times also treated of as separate attributes. 

Justice, in its principle, is holiness, and is 
often expressed by the term righteousness; but 
when it relates to matters of government, the 
universal rectitude of the Divine nature shows 



itself in inflexible regard to what is right, and in 
an opposition to wrong, which cannot be warped 
or altered in any degree whatever. "Just and 
right is he." Justice in God, when it is not 
regarded as universal, but particular, is either 
legislative or judicial. 

Legislative justice determines man's duty, and 
binds him to the performance of it, and also 
defines the rewards and punishments which shall 
be due upon the creature's obedience or dis- 
obedience. This branch of Divine justice has 
many illustrations in Scripture. The principle 
of it is, that absolute right which God has to the 
entire and perpetual obedience of the creatures 
which he has made. This right is unquestion- 
able ; and in pursuance of it, all moral agents 
are placed under law, and are subject to rewards 
or punishments. None are excepted. Those 
who have not God's revealed law, have a law 
"written in their hearts," and are "a law unto 
themselves." The original law of obedience 
given to man was a law not to the first man, but 
to the whole human race ; for if, as the apostle 
has laid it down, "all the world" comprising 
both Jews and Gentiles, is "guilty before God," 
then the whole world is under a law of obedi- 
ence. In this respect God is just in asserting 
his own right to be obeyed, and in claiming, from 
the creature he has made and preserved, the 
obedience which in strict righteousness he owes ; 
but this claim is strictly limited, and never goes 
beyond justice into rigor. "He is not a hard 
master, reaping where he has not sown, and 
gathering where he has not strewed." His law 
is, however, unchangeable in its demand upon 
man for universal obedience, because man is 
considered in it as a creature capable of yield- 
ing that obedience; but when the human race 
became corrupt, means of pardon, consistent with 
righteous government, were introduced, by the 
atonement for sin made by the death of Jesus 
Christ, received by faith ; and supernatural aid 
was put within their reach, by which the evil of 
their nature might be removed, and the disposition 
and the power to obey the law of God imparted. 
The case of heathen nations to whom the gospel 
is not yet preached may hereafter be considered. 
It involves some difficulties, but it is enough for 
us to know that "the Judge of all the earth 
will do right;" and that this shall be made 
apparent to all creatures when the facts of the 
whole case shall be disclosed, "in the day of the 
revelation of Jesus Christ." 

Judicial justice, more generally termed distribu- 
tive justice, is that which respects rewards and 
punishments. God renders to men according 
to their works. This branch of justice is said 
to be remunerative or prcemiative, when he rewards 



CH. VII.] 

the obedient; and vindictive "when he punishes 
the guilty. With respect to the first, it is indeed 
reward, properly speaking, not of debt, but of 
grace ; for, antecedently, God cannot be a debtor 
to his creatures ; but since he binds himself by 
engagements in his law, " This do and thou shalt 
live," express or tacit, or attaches a particular 
promise of reward to some particular duty, it 
becomes a part of justice to perform the engage- 
ment. On this principle, also, St. Paul says, 
Heb. vi. 10, " God is not unrighteous to forget 
your work and labor of love." And "if we con- 
fess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive 
us our sins." "Even this has justice in it. 
It is upon one account the highest act of mercy 
imaginable, considering with what liberty and 
freedom the course and method were settled 
wherein sins come to be pardoned ; but it is an 
act of justice also, inasmuch as it is the observa- 
tion of a method to which he had bound himself, 
and from which afterward, therefore, he cannot 
depart, cannot vary." — Howe's Post. Works. 

Vindictive or punitive justice consists in the 
infliction of punishment. It renders the punish- 
ment of unpardoned sin certain, so that no 
criminal shall escape ; and it guarantees the 
exact proportion of punishment to the nature 
and circumstances of the offence. Both these 
circumstances are marked in numerous passages 
of Scripture, the testimony of which on this 
subject may be summed up in the words of 
Elihu: "For the work of a man shall he render 
unto him, and cause every man to find according 
to his ways ; yea, surely God will not do wickedly, 
neither will the Almighty pervert judgment." 

What is called commutative justice relates 
to the exchange of one thing for another of 
equal value, and is called forth by contracts, 
bargains, and similar transactions among men; 
but this branch of justice belongs not to God, 
because of his dignity. "He hath no equal : there 
are none of the same order with him to make 
exchanges with him, or to transfer rights to him 
for any rights transferred from him." "Our 
righteousness extendeth not to him, nor can man 
be profitable to his Maker." The whole world 
of creatures is challenged and humbled by the 
question, "Who hath first given to him, and it 
shall be recompensed unto him again ?" 

Strict impartiality is, however, a prominent 
character in the justice of God. "There is no 
respect of persons with God." As on the ono 
hand he hateth nothing which he has made, and 
cannot be influenced by prejudices and preposses- 
sions, so on the other he can fear no one, how- 
ever powerful. No being is necessary to him, 
even as an agent to fulfil his plans, that he 
should overlook His offences: no combination 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



249 



of beings can resist the steady and equal march 
of his administration. The majesty of his God- 
head sets him infinitely above all such considera- 
tions. " The Lord your God is God of gods, 
and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and 
terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor 
taketh reward. He accepteth not the persons 
of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than 
the poor, for they are all the work of his 
hands." 

There are, however, many circumstances in 
the administration of the affairs of the world 
which appear irreconcilable to that strict and 
exact exercise of justice we have ascribed to 
God as the Supreme Euler. These have some- 
times been urged as objections, and the writers 
of systems of "natural 'religion" have often 
found it difficult to answer them. That has 
arisen from their excluding from such systems, 
as much as possible, the light of revelation; 
and on that account, much more than from the 
real difficulties of the cases adduced, it is, that 
their reasonings are often unsatisfactory. Yet 
if man is, in point of fact, under a dispensation 
of grace and mercy, and that is now in perfect 
accordance with the strictest justice of God's 
moral government, neither his circumstances nor 
the conduct of God toward .him can ever be 
judged of by systems which are constructed ex- 
pressly on the principle of excluding all such 
views as are peculiar to the Scriptures. In 
attempting it the cause of truth has been injured 
rather than served ; because a feeble argument- 
has been often wielded when a powerful one was 
at hand; and the answer to infidel objectors has 
been partial, lest it should be said that the full 
and sufficient reply was furnished, not by human 
reason, but by the reason, the wisdom of God 
himself as embodied in his word. This is, how- 
ever^ little better than a solemn manner of 
trifling with truths which so deeply concern 
men. 

But let the two facts which respect the rela- 
tions of man to God as the Governor of the 
world, and which stamp their character upon 
his administration, be both taken into account: 
that God is a just Ruler, — and yet, that offend- 
ing man is under a dispensation of mercy which 
provides, through the sacrifice of Christ meri- 
toriously, and his own repentance and faith 
instrumcntally, for his forgiveness, and for the 
healing of his corrupted nature; and a strong 
and generally a most satisfactory light is thrown 
upon those cases which have been supposed most 
irreconcilable to an exact and righteous govern- 
ment. 

.The doctrine of a, future and general judgment, 
which alone explains so many difficulties in the 



250 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



Divine administration, is grounded solely on the 
doctrine of redemption. Under an administra- 
tion of strict justice, punishment must have fol- 
lowed offence without delay. This is indicated 
in the sanction of the first law, '-'la the day thou 
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" — a threat 
which, we may learn from Scripture, would hare 
been executed fully, but for the immediate intro- 
duction of the redeeming scheme. If we sup- 
pose the first pair to have preserved their inno- 
cence, and any of their descendants at any 
period to have become disobedient, they must 
have borne their own iniquity ; and punishment, 
to death and excision, must instantly have fol- 
lowed ; for, in the case of a Divine government, 
where the parties are God and a creature, every 
sin must be considered capital, since the penalty 
of death is, in every case, the sentence of the 
Divine law against transgression. Under such 
an administration, no reason would seem to 
exist for a general judgment at the close of the 
world's duration. That has its reason in the 
circumstances of trial in which men are placed 
by the introduction of a method of recovery. 
Justice, in connection with a sufficient atone- 
ment, admits of the suspension of punishment 
for offence, of long-suffering, of the application 
of means of repentance and conversion, and that 
throughout the whole term of natural life. The 
judgment, the exam in ation, and public exhibi- 
tion of the use or abuse of this patience and of 
those means, is deferred to one particular day, 
in which he who now offers grace shall adminis- 
ter justice, strict and unsparing. This world is 
not the appointed place of final judgment, under 
the new dispensation : the space of human life 
on earth is not the time appointed for it; and 
however difficult it may be, without taking these 
things into consideration, to trace the manifes- 
tations of justice in God's moral government, or 
to reconcile certain circumstances to the charac- 
ter of a righteous governor, by their aid the 
difficulty is removed. Justice, as the principle of 
his administration, has a sufficiently awful mani- 
festation in the miseries which, in this life, are 
attached to vice : in the sorrows and sufferings 
to which a corrupted race is subjected; and, 
above all, in the satisfaction exacted from the 
Son of God himself, as the price of human par- 
don; but since the final punishment of perse- 
vering and obstinate offenders is, by God's own 
proclamation, postponed to "a day appointed, in 
which he will judge the world in righteousness, 
by that man whom he hath ordained," and 
since, also, the final rewards of the reconciled 
and recovered part of mankind are equally de- 
layed, it is folly to look for a perfect exercise of 
justice in the present state. 



We may learn, therefore, from this : — 

1. That it is no impeachment of a righteous 
government, that external prosperity should be 
the lot of great offenders. It may be part of a 
gracious administration to bring them to re- 
pentance by favor, or it may be designed to 
make their fall and final punishment more 
marked, or it may be intended to teach the im- 
portant lesson of the slight value of outward 
advantages, separate from holy habits and a 
thankful mind. 

2. That it is not inconsistent with rectitude, 
that even those who are forgiven and reconciled, 
those who are become dear to God, should be 
afflicted and oppressed, since their defects and 
omissions may require chastisement, and since, 

; also, these are made the means of their excelling 
in virtue, of aiding their heavenly -mindedness, 
and of qualifying them for a better state. 

3. That as the administration under which 
man is placed is one of grace in harmony with 
justice, the dispensation of what is matter of 

' pure favor may have great variety, and be even 
very unequal, without any impeachment of jus- 
tice. The parable of the laborers in the vine- 
yard seems designed to illustrate this. To all 
God will be able, at the reckoning at the close 
of the day, to say, "I do thee no wrong:" no 
principle of justice will be violated : it will then 
appear that "he reaps not where he has not 
sown." But the other principle will have been 
as strikingly made manifest, "Is it not lawful 
for me to do what I will with my own?" 

With nations the case is otherwise. Their 
rewards and punishments being of a civil nature, 
may be fully administered in this life, and, as 
bodies politic, they have no posthumous exist- 
ence. Reward and retribution, in their case, 
have been, therefore, in all ages, visible and 
striking ; and, in the conduct of the great Ruler 
to them, his "judgments" are said to be 
abroad "in the earth." In succession, every 
vicious nation has perished ; and always by 
means so marked, and often so singular, as to 
bear upon them a broad and legible punitive char- 
acter. "With collective bodies of men, indeed, 
the government of God in this world is greatly 
concerned, and that both in their civil and reli- 
gious character: with churches, so to speak, as 
well as with states; and, in consequence, the 
cases of individuals, as all cannot be of equal 
guilt or innocence, must often be mixed and con- 
founded. These apparent, and sometimes, per- 
haps, from the operation of a general system, 
real irregularities, can be compensated to the 
good, or overtaken as to the wicked, in their per- 
sonal character in another state, to which we 
are constantly directed to look forward, as to the 



CH. VII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



251 



great and ample comment npon all that is ob- 
scure in this. 

For the discoveries of the word of God as to 
this attribute of the Divine nature, we owe the 
most grateful acknowledgments to its Author. 
Without this revelation, indeed, the conceptions 
which heathen form of the justice with which 
the world is administered, are exceedingly im- 
perfect and unsettled. The course of the world 
is to them a flow without a direction, movement 
without control ; and gloom and impatience must 
often be the result: * taught as we are, we see 
nothing loose or disjointed in the system. A 
firm hand grasps and controls and directs the 
whole. This governing power is also manifested 
to us as our friend, our father, and our God, de- 
lighting in mercy, and resorting only to severity 
when we ourselves oblige the reluctant measure. 
On these firm principles of justice and mercy, 
truth and goodness, every thing in private as 
well as public is conducted ; and from these 
stable foundations, no change, no convulsion, can 
shake off the vast frame of human interests and 
concerns. 

Allied to justice, as justice is allied to holiness, 
is the truth of God, which manifestation of the 
moral character of God has also an eminent 
place in the inspired volume. His paths are 
said to be "mercy and truth,'''' — his words, ways, 
and judgments, to be true and righteous. "His 
mercy is great to the heavens and his truth to 
the clouds. He keepeth truth for ever. The 
strength of Israel will not lie. It is impossible 
that God should lie. He is the faithful God 
which keepeth covenant and mercy : he abideth 
faithful." From these and other passages, it is 
plain that truth is contemplated by the sacred 
writers in its two great branches, veracity and 
faithfulness, both of which they ascribe to God, 
with an emphasis and vigor of phrase which 
show at once their belief of the facts, their trust 
and confidence in them, and the important place 
which they considered the existence of such a 
being to hold in a system of revealed religion. 
It forms, indeed, the basis of all religion to know 
the true God, and to know that that God is true. 
In the Bible this must of necessity be fully and 



1 The accomplished Quinctilian may bo given as an in- 
Btanco of this, and also of what the apostlo calls their 
sorrowing "without hope." In pathetically lamenting 
tho death of his wife and sons, ho tolls us that he had lost 
all taste for Study, and that every good parent would con- 
demn him if ho employed his tongue for any other pur- 
pose than to accuse the gods, and testify against a Provi- 
dence. "Quia enim bonus parous mini lgnoscat, ao non 
oderit hano anlml mel linnitatem, si quis in me est alius 
iisus Micis, qiiain ut, incuscm deos, suporstos omnium moo- 
rmii. nullam terras despicero providentiam tester?" — In- 
st it. Lib. 6. 



satisfactorily declared, because of the other dis- 
coveries which it makes of the Divine nature. 
If it reveals to us, as the only living and true 
God, a being of knowledge infinitely perfect, 
then he himself cannot be deceived; and his 
knowledge is true because conformable to the 
exact and perfect reality of things. If he is 
holy, without spot or defect, then his word must 
be conformable to his knowledge, will, and in- 
tention. On this account he cannot deceive 
others. In all his dealings with us he uses a 
perfect sincerity, and represents things as they 
are, whether laws to be obeyed or doctrines to 
be believed. All is perfect and absolute veracity 
in his communications. "God is light, and in 
him is no darkness at all." 

His faithfulness relates to his engagements, 
and is confirmed to us with the same certainty 
as his veracity. If he enters into engagements, 
promises, and covenants, he acts with perfect 
freedom. These are acts of grace to which he 
is under no compulsion, and they can never, 
therefore, be reluctant engagements which he 
would wish to violate ; because they flow from a 
ceaseless and changeless inclination to bestow 
benefits, and a delight in the exercise of good- 
ness. They can never be made in haste or un- 
advisedly, for the whole case of his creatures to 
the end of time is before him, and no circum- 
stances can arise which to him are new or un- 
foreseen. He cannot want the power to fulfil 
his promises, because he is omnipotent : he can- 
not promise beyond his ability to make good, 
because his fulness is infinite: finally, "he can- 
not deny himself," because "he is not a man 
that he should lie, neither the son of man that he 
should repent;" and thus every promise that he 
has made is guaranteed, as well by his natural 
attributes of wisdom, power, and sufficiency, as 
by his perfect moral rectitude. In this manner 
the true God stands contrasted with the "lying 
vanities " of the heathen deities ; and in this his 
character of truth, the everlasting foundations 
of his religion are laid. That changes not, be- 
cause the doctrines taught in it are in themselves 
true without error, and can never be displaced 
by new and better discoveries : it fails not, be- 
cause every gracious promise must by him be 
accomplished; and thus the religion of the 
Bible continues from age to age, and from day 
to day, as much a matter of personal experience 
as it ever was. In its doctrines it can never 
become an antiquated theory, for truth is eter- 
nal. In its practical application it can never 
become foreign to man, for it enters now, and 
must ever enter into his concerns, his duties, 
hopes, and comforts, to the end of time. We 
know what is true as an object of InTuf. because 



252 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



the God of truth has declared it ; and -we know 
what is faithful, and, therefore, the object of 
unlimited trust, because " he is faithful that 
promised." Whether, therefore, in the lan- 
guage of the old divines, we consider God's word 
as "declaratory or promissory," declaring "how 
things are or how they shall be," ox promising to 
us certain benefits, its absolute truth is con- 
firmed to us by the truth of the Divine nature 
itself: it claims the undivided assent of our 
judgment, and the unsuspicious trust of our 
hearts ; and presents, at once, a sure resting- 
place for our opinions, and a faithful object for 
our confidence. 

Such are the adorable attributes of the ever- 
blessed God which are distinctly revealed to us 
in his own word : in addition to which there are 
other and more general ascriptions of excellence 
to him, which, though, from the very greatness 
of the subject, and the imperfection of human 
conception and human language, they are vague 
and indeterminate, serve for this very reason to 
heighten our conceptions of him, and to set 
before the humbled and awed spirit of man an 
overwhelming height and depth of majesty and 
glory. 

God is perfect. We are thus taught to ascribe 
to him every natural and moral excellence we can 
conceive ; and when we have done that, we are 
to conclude that if any nameless and unconceived 
glory be necessary to complete a perfection 
which excludes all deficiency — which is capable 
of no excess — which is unalterably full and 
complete — it exists in him. Every attribute in 
him is perfect in its kind, and is the most elevated 
of its kind. It is perfect in its degree, not falling 
in the least below the standard of the highest 
excellence, either in our conceptions, or those of 
angels, or in the possible nature of things itself. 
These various perfections are systematically dis- 
tributed into incommunicable, as self-existence, 
immensity, eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, 
and the like, because there is nothing in crea- 
tures which could be signified by such names — 
no common properties of which these could be 
the common terms, and therefore they remain 
peculiarly and exclusively proper to God himself; 
and communicable, such as wisdom, goodness, 
holiness, justice, and truth, because, under the 
same names, they may be spoken of him and of 
us, though in a sense infinitely inferior. But all 
these perfections form the one glorious perfection 
and fulness of excellence which constitutes the 
Divine nature. They are not accidents, sepa- 
rable from that nature, or superadded to it; but 
they are his very nature itself, which is and 
must be perfectly wise and good, holy and just, 
almighty and all-sufficient. This idea of positive 



[PART II. 

perfection, which runs through the whole of 
Scripture, warrants us also to conclude that 
where negative attributes are ascribed to God, 
they imply always a positive excellence. Immor- 
tality implies "an undecaying fulness of life;" 
and when God is said to be invisible, the meaning 
is, that he is a Being of too high an excellency, 
of too glorious and transcendent a nature, to be 
subject to the observation of sense. 

God is all-sufficient. This is another of those 
declarations of Scripture which exalt our views 
of God into a mysterious, unbounded, and unde- 
fined amplitude of grandeur. It is sufficiency, 
absolute plenitude and fulness from himself eter- 
nally rising out of his own perfections ; for him- 
self, so that he is all to himself, and depends 
upon no other being; and for all that communica- 
tion, however large and however lasting, on which 
the whole universe of existent creatures depends, 
and from which future creations, if any take 
place, can only be supplied. The same vast 
thought is expressed by St. Paul, in the phrase 
"All in all," which, as Howe justly observes, 
[Posthumous Works,) "is a most godlike phrase, 
wherein God doth speak of himself with Divine 
greatness and majestic sense. Here is an All in 
all : an all comprehended, and an all compre- 
hending : one create, and the other uncreate : 
the former contained in the latter, and lost like 
a drop in the ocean, in the all-comprehending, 
all-pervading, all-sustaining uncreated fulness." 
"In him we live, and move, and have our being." 

God is unsearchable. All we see or hear of him 
is faint and shadowy manifestation. Beyond the 
highest glory, there is yet an unpierced and 
unapproached light, a track of intellectual and 
moral splendor untravelled by the thoughts of 
the contemplating and adoring spirits who are 
nearest to his throne. The manifestation of this 
nature of God, never fully to be revealed, because 
infinite, is represented as constituting the reward 
and the felicity of heaven. This is "to see 
God." This is to be for "ever with the Lord." 
This is to behold his glory as in a glass, with 
unveiled face, and to be changed into his image, 
from glory to glory, in boundless progression 
and infinite approximation. Yet after all it will 
be as true, after countless ages spent* in heaven 
itself, as in the present state, that none by 
" searching can find out God," that is, "to per- 
fection." He will then be "a God that hideth 
himself;" and widely as the illumination may 
extend, "clouds and darkness will still be round 
about him. — His glorious name is exalted above all ' 
blessing and praise. — Thine, Lord, is the great- 
ness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, 
and the majesty ; for all that is in the heaven and 
in the earth is thine: thine is the kingdom, Lord, 



CH. VIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



253 



and thou art exalted as head over all. — Blessed be 
the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth 
wondrous things; and blessed be his glorious name 
for ever, and let the whole earth be filled with his 
glory. Amen and Amen." 



CHAPTER VIII. 

GOD. — THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 

We now approach this great mystery of our 
faith, for the declaration of which we are so 
exclusively indebted to the Scriptures, that not 
only is it incapable of proof a priori, but it 
derives no direct confirmatory evidence from the 
existence, and wise and orderly arrangement, of 
the works of God. It stands, however, on the 
unshaken foundation of his own word — that tes- 
timony which he has given of himself in both 
Testaments ; and if we see no traces of it, as of 
his simple Being and operative perfections, in 
the works of his creative power and wisdom, the 
reason is that creation in itself could not be the 
medium of manifesting or of illustrating it. 
Some, it is true, have thought the trinity of 
Divine persons in the unity of the Godhead demon- 
strable by natural reason. Poiret and others, 
formerly, and Professor Kidcl, recently, have all 
attempted to prove, not that this doctrine implies 
a contradiction, but that it cannot be denied 
without a contradiction; and that it is impossible 
but that the Divine nature should so exist. The 
former endeavors to prove that neither creation, 
nor indeed any action in the Deity, was possible 
but from this tri-unity. But his arguments, 
were they adduced, would scarcely be considered 
satisfactory, even by those whose belief in the 
doctrine is most settled. The latter argues from 
notions of duration and space, which themselves 
have not hitherto been satisfactorily established, 
and, if they had, would yield but slight assistance 
in such an investigation. This, however, may 
be said respecting such attempts, that they at 
least show that men, quite as eminent for strength 
of understanding, and logical acuteness, as any 
who have decried the doctrine of the trinity as 
irrational and contradictory, find no such oppo- 
sition in it to the reason, or to the nature of things, 
as the latter pretend to be almost self-evident. 
The very opposite conclusions reached by the 
parties, when they reason the matter by the light 
of their own intellect only, is a circumstance, it 
is true, which lessens our confidence in pretended 
rational demonstrations ; but it gives neither party 
a right to assume any thing at the expense of the 
other. Such failures ought, indeed, to produco 



in us a proper sense of the inadequacy of human 
powers to search the deep things of God ; and 
they forcibly exhibit the necessity of Divine 
teaching in every thing which relates to such 
subjects, and demand from us an entire docility 
of mind, where God himself has condescended to 
become our instructor. 

More objectionable than the attempts which 
have been made to prove this mystery by mere 
argument, are pretensions to explain it : whether 
by what logicians call immanent acts of Deity upon 
himself, from whence arise the relations of 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or by assuming 
that the trinity is the same as the three " essen- 
tial primalities, or active powers in the Divine 
essence, power, intellect, and will," 1 for which 
they invent a kind of personification; or by 
alleging that the three persons are "Deus seipsum 
intelligens, Deus a seipso intellectus, et Deus a seipso 
amatus." All such hypotheses either darken the 
counsel they would explain, by "words without 
knowledge;" or assume principles which, when 
expanded into their full import, are wholly in- 
consistent with the doctrine as it is announced 
in the Scripture, and which their advocates have 
professed to receive. 

It is a more innocent theory, that types and 
symbols of the mystery of the trinity are found 
in various natural objects. From the fathers, 
many have illustrated the trinity of persons in 
the same Divine nature by the analogy of three 
or more men having each the same human 
nature : by the union of two natures of man in 
one person : by the trinity of intellectual primary 
faculties in the soul, power, intellect, and will, 
"posse, scire, velle," which they say are not three 
parts of the soul, "it being the whole soul guce 
potest, guce intelligit, et guce vult :" by motion, 
light, and heat in the sun, with many others. 
Of these instances, however, we may observe, 
that even granting them all to be philosophically 
true, they cannot be proofs : they are seldom, or 
very inapplicably illustrations ; and the best use 
to which they have ever been put, or of which 
they are indeed capable, is to silence the absurd 
objections which are sometimes drawn from 
things merely natural and finite, by answers 
which natural and finite things supply ; though 
both the objections and the answers often prove 
that the subject in question is too elevated and 
peculiar to bo approached by such analogies. 
Of these illustrations, as they have been some- 
times called, Baxter, though inclined to make 
too much of them, well enough observes : "It is 
one thing to show in the creatures a dear 



' * "Potontia, Intellectus, et Voluntas," or "Potentia, 
Sapiontia, et Amor." — Cainpatwlla. Ilichardw, :uul others. 



254 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



demonstration of this trinity of persons, by 
showing an effect that fully answereth it, and 
another thing to show such vestigia, adumbration, 
or image of it, as hath those dissimilitudes which 
must be allowed in any created image of God. 
This is it which I am to do." [Christian Religion.) 
This excellent man has been charged, perhaps a 
little too hastily, with adopting one of the theories 
given above, as his own view of the trinity, a 
trinity of personified attributes, rather than of 
real persons. It must, however , be acknowledged 
that he has given some occasion for the allega- 
tion, but his conclusion is worthy of himself, 
and instructive to all: "But for my own part, as 
I unfeignedly account the doctrine of the trinity 
the very sum and kernel of the Christian religion, 
(as expressed in our baptism,) and Athanasius 
his creed, the best explication of it that ever I 
read, so I think it very unmeet, in these tremen- 
dous mysteries, to go farther than we have 
God's own light to guide us." — Christ. Religion. 

The term person has been variously taken. It 
signifies in ordinary language an individual sub- 
stance of a rational or intelligent nature. 1 In 
the strict philosophical sense, it has been said, 
two or more persons would be two or more dis- 
tinct beings. If the term person were so applied 
to the trinity in the Godhead, a plurality of Gods 
would follow : while, if taken in what has been 
called a political sense, personality would be 
no more than relation, arising out of office. 
Personality in God is, therefore, not to be under- 
stood in either of the above senses, if respect be 
paid to the testimony of Scripture. God is one 
being : this is admitted on both sides. But he is 
more than one being in three relations ; for personal 
acts, that is, such acts as we are used to ascribe to 
distinct persons, and which we take most unequi- 
vocally to characterize personality, are ascribed 
to each. The Scripture doctrine, therefore, is, 
that the persons are not separate, but distinct; that 
they "are united persons, or persons having no 
separate existence, and that they are so united 
as to be but one being, one God." In other 
words, that the one Divine nature exists under 
the personal distinction of Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. 

"The word person," Howe remarks, "must 
not be taken to signify the same thing, when 
spoken of God and of ourselves." That is, not in 
all respects. Nevertheless, it is the only word 
which can express the sense of those passages in 
which personal acts are unequivocally ascribed 
to each of the Divine subsistences in the God- 
head. Perhaps, however, one may be allowed to 
doubt whether, in all respects, the term person 

i It is defined by Occam, "Suppositum intdloctuaU? 



may not be taken to signify "the same thing" 
in us and in God. It is true, as before observed, 
that three persons among men or angels would 
convey the idea of three different and separate 
beings ; but it may be questioned whether this 
arises from any thing necessarily conveyed in the 
idea of personality. We have been accustomed 
to observe personality only in connection with 
separate beings ; but this separation seems to be 
but a circumstance connected with personality, 
and not any thing which arises out of personality 
itself. Dr. Waterland clearly defines the term 
person, as it must be understood in this contro- 
versy, to be " an intelligent agent, having the 
distinct characters, I, thou, he." That one 
being should necessarily conclude one person 
only, is, however, what none can prove from the 
nature of things ; and all that can be affirmed 
on the subject is, that it is so in fact among 
all intelligent creatures with which we are ac- 
quainted. Among them distinct persons are only 
seen in separate beings, but this separation of 
being is clearly an accident of personality; for 
the circumstance of separation forms no part of 
the idea of personality itself, which is confined 
to a capability of performing personal acts. In 
God, the distinct persons are represented as 
having a common foundation in one being ; but 
this union also forms no part of the idea of 
personality, nor can be proved inconsistent with 
it. The manner of the union, it is granted, is 
incomprehensible, and so is Deity himself, and 
every essential attribute with which his nature 
is invested. 

It has been said that the term person is not 
used in Scripture ; and some who believe the 
doctrine it expresses have objected to its use. 
To such it may be sufficient to reply, that, pro- 
vided that which is clearly stated in Scripture 
be compendiously expressed by this term, and 
cannot so well be expressed, except by an incon- 
venient periphrasis, it ought to be retained. 
They who believe such a distinction in the God- 
head as amounts to a personal distinction, will 
not generally be disposed to surrender a word 
which keeps up the force of the scriptural idea ; 
and they who do not, object not to the term, but 
to the doctrine which it conveys. It is not, how- 
ever, so clear that there is not Scripture warrant 
for the term itself. Our translators so concluded 
when, in Heb. i. 3, they call the Son " the express 
image" of the "person" of the Father. The 
original word is hypostasis, which was understood 
by the Greek fathers to signify a person, though 
not, it is true, exclusively so used. 2 The sense 

2 " Nonnunquam i>7r6(JTacnc pro eo quod nos ovaiav dici- 
mus et vise versa vox ovaca pro eo quod nos vrrooraotV 



CH. VIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



255 



of vtcogtclgls in tliis passage must, however, be 
considered as fixed by the apostle's argument, by 
all who allow the Divinity of the Son of God; 
for the Son being called "the express image" of 
the Father, a distinction between the Son and the 
Father is thus unquestionably expressed ; but if 
there be but one God, and the Son be Divine, the 
distinction here expressed cannot be a distinction 
of essence, and must, therefore, be a personal 
one. Not from the Father's essence, but from 
the Father's hypostasis or person, can he be 
distinguished. This seems sufficient to have 
warranted the use of hypostasis in the sense of 
person in the early Church, and to authorize the 
latter term in our own language. In fact, it was 
by the adoption of the two great theological 
terms 6/ioovGiog and vTroaraoic, that the early 
Church at length reared up impregnable barriers 
against the two leading heresies into which almost 
every modification of error as to the person of 
Christ may be resolved. The former, which is 
compounded of o/xbg, the same, and ovaia, substance, 
stood opposed to the Arians, who denied that Christ 
was of the substance of the Father, that is, that 
he was truly God : the latter, when fixed in the 
sense of person, resisted the Sabellian scheme, 
which allowed the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, 
but denied their proper personality. 

Among the leading writers in defence of the 
trinity, there are some shades of difference in 
opinion as to what constitutes the unity of the 
three persons in the Godhead. Doddridge thus 
expresses these leading differences among the 
orthodox : 

"Mr. Howe seems to suppose that there are 
three distinct, eternal spirits, or distinct intelli- 
gent hypostases, each having his own distinct, 
singular, intelligent nature, united in such an 
inexplicable manner, as that upon account of 
their perfect harmony, consent, and affection, to 
which he adds their mutual self-consciousness, 
they may be called the one God, as properly as 
the different corporeal, sensitive, and intellectual 
natures united may be called one man. 

"Dr. Waterland, Dr. A. Taylor, with the rest 
of the Athanasians, assert three proper distinct 
persons, entirely equal to and independent upon 
each other, yet making up one and the same 
being; and that, though there may appear 
many things inexplicable in the scheme, it is 
to be charged to the weakness of our under- 
standing, and not to the absurdity of the doctrine 
itself. 

appellamuH,abip8inacceptafuit." — Bp. Bull. 'YiroGTaaig, 
it ought, however, to bo observed, was used in the Nonso of 
person before the council of Nice, by many Christian 
writers; and in die, ancient Greek Lexicons it is explained 
hy 7tj)6g(jkov, a »d rendered bj the Latins persona. 



"Bishop Pearson, with whom Bishop Bull also 
agrees, is of opinion that, though God the Father 
is the fountain of the Deity, the whole Divine 
nature is communicated from the Father to the 
Son, and from both to the Spirit, yet so as that 
the Father and the Son are not separate nor 
separable from the Divinity, but do still exist 
in it, and are most intimately united to it. This 
was also Dr. Owen's scheme." — Lectures. 

The last view appears to comport most exactly 
with the testimony of Scripture, which shall be 
presently adduced. 

Before we enter upon the examination of the 
scriptural proofs of the trinity, it may be neces- 
sary to impress the reader with a sense of the 
importance of this revealed doctrine; and the 
more so as it has been a part of the subtle war- 
fare of the enemies of this fundamental branch 
of the common faith to represent it as of little 
consequence, or as a matter of useless specula- 
tion. Thus Dr. Priestley: "All that can be said 
for it is, that the doctrine, however improbable 
in itself, is necessary to explain some particular 
texts of Scripture ; and that if it had not been 
for those particular texts we should have found 
no want of it, for there is neither any fact in 
nature, nor any one purpose of morals, which 
are the object and end of all religion, that requires 
it." — History of Early Opinions. 

The non-importance of the doctrine has been 
a favorite subject with its opposers in all ages, 
that by allaying all fears in the minds of the 
unwary as to the consequences of the opposite 
errors, they might be put off their guard, and be 
the more easily persuaded to part with "the 
faith delivered to the saints." The answer is, 
however, obvious. 

1. The knowledge of God is fundamental to 
religion; and as we know nothing of him but 
what he has been pleased to reveal, and as these 
revelations have all moral ends, and are designed 
to promote piety, and not to gratify curiosity, all 
that he has revealed of himself in particular must 
partake of that character of fundamental import- 
ance which belongs to the knowledge of God in the 
aggregate. " This is life eternal, that they might 
know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Cln'ist 
whom thou hast sent." Nothing, therefore, can 
disprove the fundamental importance of the 
trinity in unity but that which will disprove it to 
be a doctrine of Scripture. 

2. Dr. Priestley allows that this doctrine "is 
necessary to explain some particular texts of 
Scripture." This alono is sufficient to mark its 
importance ; especially as it can be shown that 
these "particular texts of Soripture" comprehend 
a very large portion of the Bacred volume; that 
they are scattered throughout almost all tho 



256 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



books of both. Testaments; that they are not 
incidentally introduced only, but solemnly laid 
down as revelations of the nature of God ; and 
that they manifestly give the tone both to the 
thinking and the phrase of the sacred writers on 
many other weighty subjects. That which is 
necessary to explain so many passages of holy 
writ, and without which they are so incorrigibly 
unmeaning that the Socinians have felt them- 
selves obliged to submit to their evidence, or to 
expunge them from the inspired record, carries 
with it an importance of the highest character. 
So important, indeed, is it, upon the showing of 
these opposers of the truth themselves, that we 
can only preserve the Scriptures by admitting it ; 
for they, first by excepting to the genuineness 
of certain passages, then by questioning the 
inspiration of whole books, and, finally, of the 
greater part, if not the whole New Testament, 
have nearly left themselves as destitute of a 
revelation from God as infidels themselves. No 
homage more expressive has ever been paid to 
this doctrine, as the doctrine of the Scriptures, 
than the liberties thus taken with the Bible by 
those who have denied it : no stronger proof can 
be offered of its importance than that the Bible 
cannot be interpreted upon any substituted theory, 
they themselves being the judges. 

3. It essentially affects our views of God as the 
object of our worship, whether we regard him as 
one in essence, and one in person, or admit that 
in the unity of this Godhead there are three 
equally Divine persons. These are two very 
different conceptions. Both cannot be true. The 
God of those who deny the trinity, is not the God 
of those who worship the trinity in unity, nor on the 
contrary : so that one or the other worships what 
is "nothing in the world;" and, for any reality 
in the object of worship, might as well worship 
a pagan idol, which also, says St. Paul, "is no- 
thing in the world." "If God be Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, the duties owing to God will be 
duties owing to that triune distinction, which 
must be paid accordingly ; and whoever leaves 
any of them out of his idea of God, comes so far 
short of honoring God perfectly, and of serving 
him in proportion to the manifestations he has 
made of himself." — Waterland. 

As the object of our worship is affected by our 
respective views on this great subject, so also its 
character. We are between the extremes of pure 
and acceptable devotion, and of gross and offen- 
sive idolatry, and must run to one or the other. 
If the doctrine of the trinity be true, then those 
who deny it do not worship the God of the 
Scriptures, but a fiction of their own framing : 
if it be false, the trinitarian, by paying Divine 
honors to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, is 



[part n. 



equally guilty of idolatry, though in another 
mode. 

Now it is surely important to determine this ; 
and which is the most likely to have fallen into 
this false and corrupt worship, the very primd, 
facie evidence may determine : — the trinitarian, 
who has the letter, and plain, common-sense inter- 
pretation of Scripture for his warrant ; or he who 
confesses that he must resort to all the artifices 
of criticism, and boldly challenge the inspiration 
of an authenticated volume, to get rid of the evi- 
dence which it exhibits against him, if taken in 
its first and most obvious meaning. 1 It is not 
now attempted to prove the Socinian heresy from 
the Scriptures : this has long been given up, and 
the main effort of all modern writers on that side 
has been directed to cavil at the adduced proofs 
of the opposite doctrine. They are as to Scrip- 
ture argument wholly on the defensive, and thus 
allow, at least, that they have no direct warrant 
for their opinions. We acknowledge, indeed, 
that the charge of idolatry would lie against us, 
could we be proved in error ; but they seem to 
forget that it lies against them, should they be 
in error ; and that they are in this error, they 
themselves tacitly acknowledge, if the Scriptures, 
which they now in great measure reject, must 
determine the question. On that authority, we 
may unhesitatingly account them idolaters, wor- 
shippers of what "is nothing in the world," and 
not of the God revealed in the Bible. 2 Thus, the 
only hope which is left to the Socinian is held 
on the same tenure as the hope of the Deist, — 
the forlorn hope that the Scriptures, which he 
rejects, are not true ; for if those texts they 
reject, and those books which they hold of no 
authority, be established, then this whole charge, 
and its consequences, lie full against them. 

4. Dr. Priestley objects, "that no fact in 
nature, nor any one purpose of morals, requires 
this doctrine." The first part of the objection is 
futile and trifling, if he meant that the facts of 
nature do not require this doctrine for their 
philosophical illustration; for who seeks the 
explication of natural phenomena in theological 
doctrines ? But there is one view in which even 
right views of the facts of nature depend upon 



1 St. Paul says, that aU Scripture is given ~by inspiration 
of God; but Dr. Priestley tells us that this signifies nothing 
more than that the hooks -were written by good men, 'with 
the best views and designs. 

2 To this purpose, Witsius, who shows that there can be 
neither religion nor worship, unless the trinity be acknow- 
ledged: "Nulla etiam religio est, nisi quis verum Deum 
colat; non colit verum Deum, sed cerebri suijigmentum, qui 
non adorat in sequali divinitatis majestate Patrem, Filium, 
et Spiritum Sanctum. I nunc, et doctrinam earn ad praxin 
inutilem esse clama, sine qua nulla Fidci aut, Pietatis 
Christianae praxis esse potest." 



CH. VIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



257 



proper views of the Godhead. All nature has a 
theological reason, and a theological end; and its 
interpretation in these respects rests wholly 
upon the person and office of our Lord. All 
things were made by the Son and for him : a 
theological view of the natural world which is 
large or contracted, emphatic or spiritless, ac- 
cording to the conceptions which we form of the 
Son of God, "by whom and for whom" it was 
built, and is preserved. The reason why the 
present circumstances of the natural world are, 
as before shown, neither wholly perfect, nor 
without large remains of original perfection — 
neither accordant with the condition of con- 
demned, nor of innocent creatures, but adapted 
only to such a state of man as the redeeming 
scheme supposes — cannot, on the Socinian hypo- 
thesis, be discovered ; for that redeeming scheme 
depends for its character upon our views of the 
person of Christ. Without a settled opinion on 
these points, we are therefore, in this respect 
also, without the key to a just and full explana- 
tion of the theological character of our present 
residence, the world. 

Another relation of the natural world to 
theology lies in its duration. It was made for 
Christ ; and the reason which determines that it 
shall be burned up centres in him. He is ap- 
pointed judge, and shall terminate the present 
scene of things, by destroying the frame of the 
visible universe, when the probation of its inhabit- 
ants shall have expired. I beg the reader to 
turn to the remarks before made on the reason 
of a general judgment being found in the fact 
that man is under grace, and not strict law ; and 
the argument offered to show that, if we were 
under a covenant of mere obedience, no cause 
for such an appointment as that of a general 
judgment would be obvious. If those views be 
correct, then the reason, both of a general judg- 
ment and the final destruction of the world, is 
to be found in the system of redemption, and 
consequently in such views of the person of 
Christ as are not found in the Socinian scheme. 
The conclusion therefore is, that as "to facts in 
nature," even they are intimately connected, in 
several very important respects, which no wise 
man can overlook, with the doctrine of the trinity. 
Socinianism cannot explain the peculiar physical 
state of the world as connected with a state of 
trial; and the general judgment, and the "end 
of all things," bear no relation to its theology. 

The connection of the orthodox doctrine with 
morula is, of course, still more direct and striking ; 
and dim must have been that intellectual eye 
which could not discern that, granting to tho 
believers in tho trinity their own principles, its 
relation to morals is vital and essential. Whether 
17 



; those principles are supported by the Scripture, 
is another consideration. If they could be dis- 
proved, then the doctrine ought to be rejected on 
a higher ground than that here urged ; but to 
attempt to push it aside, on the pretence of its 
having no connection with morals, was but a very 
unworthy mode of veiling the case. For what 
are "morals," but conformity to a Divine law, 
which law must take its character from its 
author? The trinitarian scheme is essentially 
connected with the doctrine of atonement; and 
what is called the unitarian theory necessarily 
excludes atonement. From this arise opposite 
views of God, as the Governor of the world ; of 
the law under which we are placed ; of the nature 
and consequences of sin, the violation of that 
law ; points which have an essential relation to 
morals, because they affect the nature of the 
sanctions which accompany the law of God. He 
who denies the doctrine of the trinity, and its 
necessary adjunct, the atonement, makes sin a 
matter of comparatively trifling moment : God is 
not strict to punish it ; and if punishment follow, 
it is not eternal. Whether, under these soft and 
easy views of the law of God, and of its trans- 
gression by sin, morals can have an equal sanc- 
tion, or human conduct be equally restrained, 
are points too obvious to be argued ; but a sub- 
ject which involves views of the judicial character 
of God so opposite, and of the evil and penalty 
of offence, must be considered as standing in the 
most intimate relation with every question of 
morals. It is presumed, too, in the objection, 
that faith, or, in other words, a firm belief in the 
testimony of God, is no part of morality. It is, 
however, sufficient to place this matter in a very 
different light if we recollect, that to believe is 
so much a command that the highest sanction is 
connected with it. "He that believeth shall be 
saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Nothing, therefore, can be more important to us 
than to examine, without captiousness and the 
spirit of unbelief, what God hath revealed as the 
object of our faith, since the rejection of any 
revealed truth, under the influence of pride, 
whether of the reason or the heart, or through 
affectation of independence, or love of the 
world, or any other corrupt motive, must be 
certainly visited with punishment: the law of 
faith having the same authority and the same 
sanction as the laiv of toorks. It is, therefore, a 
point of duty to believe, because it is a point of 
obedience, and hence St. Paul speaks of "the 
obedience of faith." For, as it has been well 
observed, "As to the nature of faith, it is a 
mattor of obligation, as being that natural bom- 
age which the understanding or will pays to God 
in receiving and assenting to what he reveals 



258 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART H. 



•upon his bare word or authority. It is a humilia- 
tion of ourselves, and a glorification of God." 
(Xorris on Christian Prudence.) It may be 
added, too, that faith, -which implies a submission 
to God, is an important branch also of discipline. 
The objection, that there can be no faith -where 
there is not sufficient evidence to command it, 
•will not affect this conclusion. For -when once 
the evidence of a Divine revelation is admitted, 
our duty to receive its doctrines does not rest 
upon the rational evidence we may have of 
their truth, but upon the much easier and 
plainer evidence, that they are among the things 
actually revealed. He, therefore, -who admits 
a Divine revelation, and rejects its doctrines, 
because he has not a satisfactory rational evidence 
of them, is more obviously criminal in his un- 
belief than he who rejects the revelation itself; 
for he openly debates the case with his Maker — a 
circumstance which indicates, in the most striking 
manner, a corrupt habit of mind. It is. indeed, 
often pretended, that such truths are rejected, 
not so much on this account, as that they do not 
appear to be the sense of the revelation itself. But 
this cannot be urged by those who openly lay it 
down as a principle, that a true revelation can 
contain nothing which to them appears unreason- 
able; or that, if it does, they are bound by the 
law of their nature not to admit it. ZSor will it 
appear to be any other than an unworthy and 
dishonest pretence, in all cases where such kinds 
of criticism are resorted to, to alter the sense 
of a text, or to disprove its authority, as they 
would not allow in the case of tests supposed, by 
a partial construction, to favor their own opinion ; 
or such as would be condemned by all learned 
and sober persons as hypercritical and violent, 
if applied to any other writings. It may also be 
added, that should any of the great qualities 
required in a serious and honest inquirer after 
truth have been uncultivated and unapplied, 
though a sincere conviction of the truth of an 
erroneous conclusion may exist, the guilt of un- 
belief would not be removed by such kind of 
sincerity. If there has been no anxiety to be 
right : no prayer, earnest and devout, offered to 
God, to be kept from error: if an humbl-e sense 
of human liability to err has not been main- 
tained : if diligence in looking out for proofs, and 
patience and perseverance in inquiry, have not 
been exerted : if honesty in balancing evidence, 
and a firm resolution to embrace the truth, what- 
ever prejudices or interests it may contradict or 
oppose, have not been felt : even sincerity in be- 
lieving that to be true which, in the present 
state of a judgment determined, probably, before 
all the means of information have been resorted 
to, and, perhaps, under the perverting influences 



of a worldly or carnal state of mind, may appear 
to be so, will be no excuse. We are under "a 
laic of faith," and that law cannot be supposed 
to be so pliable and nugatory as they who con- 
tend for the right of believing only what they 
please would make it. 

These observations will show the connection 
of the doctrine of the trinity with morals, the 
point denied by Dr. Priestley. 

But, to leave this objection for views of a 
larger extent: our love to God, which is the sum 
of every duty, its sanctifying motive, and conse- 
quently a compendium of all true religion, is 
most intimately and even essentially connected 
with the doctrine in question. God's love to us 
is the ground of our love to him ; and by our 
views of that it must be heightened or dimin- 
ished. The love of God to man in the gift of his 
Son is that manifestation of it on which the 
Scriptures most emphatically and frequently 
dwell, and on which they establish our duty of 
loving God and one another. Xow the estimate 
which we are to take of the love of God must 
be the value of his gifts to us. His greatest gift 
is the gift of his Son, through whom alone we 
have the promise of everlasting life ; but our 
estimate of the love which gives must be widely 
different, according as we regard the gift be- 
stowed — as a creature, or as a Divine person — as 
merely a Son of man, or as the Son of God. K 
the former only, it is difficult to conceive in what 
this love, constantly represented as "unspeaka- 
ble" and astonishing, could consist. Indeed, if 
we suppose Christ to be a man only, on the Soci- 
nian scheme, or as an exalted creature, accord- 
ing to the Arians, God might be rather said to 
have "so loved his Son'' than us, as to send him 
into the world, on a service so honorable, and 
which was to be followed by so high and vast a 
reward, that he, a creature, should be advanced 
to universal dominion and receive universal 
homage as the price only of temporary suffer- 
ings, which, upon either the Socinian or Arias 
scheme, were not greater than those which many 
of his disciples endured after him, and, in many 
instances, not so great. 1 

For the same reason, the doctrine which denies 

1 •'•' Equidem rem attentius perpendenti liquebit. ex hypo- 
thesi sive Socimana, sive Ariana, Deum in hoc negotio 
amorem et dilectionem suam potius in illnm ipsum filium, 
quam erga nos homines ostendisse. Quid enim? Is qui 
Christus dicitur. ex mera Dei evdoKca et beneplacito in 
earn gratiam electus est. nt post brevem hie in terns Deo 
praestitam obedientiam, ex puro puto homine juxta Soci- 
nisias, sive ex mera et mutabili crearura. ut Ario-manita 
dicunt, Deiis ipse fieret. ac divinos honores, non modo a 
nobis hominibus sed etiam ab ipsis angelis atque arch- 
angelis sibi tribuendos assequeretnr, adeoque in alias crea- 
turas omnes dominium atque imperium obtineret.*'— BulL 
Jud. Zed. Cathd. 



CH. VIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



259 



our Lord's Divinity diminishes the love of Christ 
himself, takes away its generosity and devotedness, 
presents it under views infinitely below those 
contained in the New Testament, and weakens 
the motives which are drawn from it to excite 
our gratitude and obedience. " If Christ was in 
the form of God, equal with God, and very God, 
it was then an act of infinite love and conde- 
scension in him to become man ; but if he was 
no more than a creature, it was no surprising 
condescension to embark in a work so glorious ; 
such as being the Saviour of mankind, and such 
as would advance him to be Lord and Judge of 
the world, to be admired, reverenced and adored, 
both by men and angels." (Waterland's Im- 
portance.) To this it may be added, that the idea 
of disinterested, generous love, such as the love 
of Christ is represented to be by the evangelists 
and the apostles, cannot be supported upon any 
supposition but that he was properly a Divine 
person. As a man and as a creature only, how- 
ever exalted, he would have profited by his ex- 
altation; but, considered as Divine, Christ gained 
nothing. God is full and perfect — he is exalted 
"above blessing and praise ;" and, therefore, our 
Lord, in that Divine nature, prays that he might 
be glorified with the Father, with the glory he 
had before. Not a glory which was new to him: 
not a glory heightened in its degree ; but the 
glory which he had with the Father "before the 
world was." In a manner mysterious to us, even 
as to his Divine nature, "he emptied himself — 
he humbled himself;" but in that nature he re- 
turned to a glory which he had before the world 
was. The whole, therefore, was in him generous, 
disinterested love, ineffable and affecting conde- 
scension. The heresy of the Socinians and Arians 
totally annihilates, therefore, the true character 
of the love of Christ, " so that," as Dr. Sherlock 
well observes, "to deny the Divinity of Christ, 
alters the very foundations of Christianity, and 
destroys all the powerful arguments of the love, 
humility, and condescension of our Lord, which 
are the peculiar motives of the gospel." — Defence 
of Stilling fleet. 

But it is not only in this view that the denial 
of the Divinity of our Lord would alter the 
foundation of the Christian scheme, but in others 
equally essential : For, 

1. Tho doctrine of satisfaction or atonement 
depends upon his Divinity ; and it is, therefore, 
consistently denied by those who reject the 
former. So important, however, is the decision 
of this case, that the very terms of our salvation, 
and the ground of our hope, are affected by it. 

The Arians, now however nearly extinct, ad- 
mitted the doctrine of atonement, though incon- 
sistently. "No creature could merit from God, 



or do works of supererogation. If it be said that 
God might accept it as he pleased, it may be said 
upon the same principle that he might accept 
the blood of bulls and of goats. Yet the apostle 
tells that it is not possible that the blood of bulls 
and of goats should take away sin : which words 
resolve the satisfaction, not merely into God's 
free acceptance, but into the intrinsic value of the 
sacrifice." (Waterland's Importance.) Hence 
the Scriptures so constantly connect the atone- 
ment with the character, the very Divinity of 
the person suffering. It was Jehovah who was 
pierced: (Zech. xii. 11:) God who purchased 
the Church with Ms own blood. Acts xx. 28. It 
was 6 Aeenrorng, the high Lord, that bought us. 
2 Peter ii. 1. It was the Lord of glory that was 
crucified. 1 Cor. ii. 8. 

It is no small presumption of the impossi- 
bility of holding, with any support from the 
common sense of mankind, the doctrine of atone- 
ment with that of an inferior Divinity, that these 
opinions have so uniformly slided down into a 
total denial of it, and by almost all persons, ex- 
cept those who have retained the pure faith of 
the gospel, Christ is regarded as a man only; 
and no atonement, in any sense, is allowed to 
have been made by his death. The terms, then, 
of human salvation are entirely different on one 
scheme and on the other ; and with respect to 
their advocates, one is "under law," the other 
" under grace ;" one takes the cause of his own 
salvation into his own hands, to manage it as he 
is able, and to plead with God, either that he is 
just, or that he may be justified by his own peni- 
tence and acts of obedient virtue: the other 
pleads the meritorious death and intercession of 
his Saviour, in his name and mediation makes 
his requests known unto God, and asks a justifi- 
cation by faith, and a renewal of heart by the 
Holy Ghost. One stands with all his offences 
before his Maker, and in his own person, without 
a mediator and advocate : the other avails him- 
self of both. A question which involves such 
consequences is surely not a speculative one ; but 
deeply practical and vital, and must be found to 
be so in its final issue. 

2. The manner in which the evil of sin is esti- 
mated must be very different, on these views of 
tho Divine nature respectively; and this is a con- 
sequence of a directly practical nature. "What- 
ever lowers in men a sense of what an apostle 
calls "the exceeding sinfulness of sin." weakens 
the hatred and horror of it among men. and In- 
consequence encourages it. In the Socinian ^ iew. 
transgressions of the Divine law are all regarded 
as venial, or, at most, to be subjeoted to slight 
and temporary punishment. In the orthodox 
doctrine, sin is an evil SO great in itsqjf, so hate- 



260 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



ful to God, so injurious in its effects, so neces- 
sary to be restrained by punishment, that it 
dooms the offender to eternal exclusion from 
God, and to positive endless punishment, and 
could only be forgiven through a sacrifice of 
atonement, so extraordinary as that of the death 
of the Divine Son of God. By these means, for- 
giveness only could be promised; and the neglect 
of them, in order to pardon and sanctification 
too, aggravates the punishment, and makes' the 
final visitation of justice the more terrible. 

3. It totally changes the character of Christian 
experience. Those strong and painful emotions 
of sorrow and alarm which characterize the de- 
scriptions and example of repentance in the 
Scriptures, are totally incongruous and uncalled 
for, upon the theory which denies man's lost 
condition, and his salvation by a process of re- 
demption. Faith, too, undergoes an essential 
change. It is no longer faith in Christ. His 
doctrine or his mission are its objects ; but not, as 
the New Testament states it, his person as a 
surety, a sacrifice, a mediator; and much less 
than any thing else can it be called, in the lan- 
guage of Scripture, '■'■faith in his blood," a 
phrase utterly incapable of an interpretation by 
Socinians. Nor is it possible to offer up prater 
to God in the name of Christ, though expressly 
enjoined upon his disciples, in any sense which 
would not justify all the idolatry of the Roman 
Church, in availing themselves of the names, the 
interests, and the merits of saints. In a Soci- 
nian this would even be more inconsistent, be- 
cause he denies the doctrine of mediation in any 
sense which would intimate that a benevolent 
God may not be immediately approached by his 
guilty but penitent creatures. Love to Christ, 
which is made so eminent a grace in internal and 
experimental Christianity, changes also its cha- 
racter. It cannot be supreme, for that would be 
to break the first and great command, "Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," 
if Christ himself be not that Lord our God. It 
must be love of the same kind we feel to creatures 
from whom we have received any benefit, and a 
passion, therefore, to be guarded and restrained, 
lest it should become excessive and wean our 
hearts and thoughts from God. But surely it is 
not under such views that love to Christ is repre- 
sented in the Scriptures ; and against its excess, 
as against creaturely attachments, we have cer- 
tainly no admonition, no cautions. The love of 
Christ to us also as a motive to generous service, 
sufferings, and death, for the sake of others, 
loses all its force and application. " The love of 
Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, 
that if one died for all, then were all dead." That 
love of Ch»st which constrained the apostle was 



[part II. 

a love which led him to die for men. St. John 
makes the duty of dying for our brother obliga- 
tory upon all Christians, if called to it, and 
grounds it upon the same fact: "He laid down 
his life for us, and we ought to lay down our 
lives for the brethren." The meaning, doubtless, 
is, in order to save them ; and though men are 
saved by Christ's dying for them, in a very dif- 
ferent sense from that in which they can be 
saved by our dying in the cause of instructing, 
and thus instrumentally saving each other, yet 
the argument is founded upon the necessary con- 
nection which there is between the death of 
Christ and the salvation of men. But, on the 
Socinian scheme, Christ did, in no sense, die for 
men — no, not in their general mode of interpret- 
ing such passages, "for the benefit of men;'" for 
what benefit, independent of propitiation, which 
Socinians deny, do men derive from the voluntary 
death of Christ, considered as a mere human 
instructor ? If it be said his death was an ex- 
ample, it was not specially and peculiarly so ; for 
both prophets and apostles have died with re- 
signation and fortitude. If it be alleged that it 
was to confirm his doctrine, the answer is that, 
in this view, it was nugatory, because it had 
been confirmed by undoubted miracles. If that 
he might confirm his mission by his resurrection, 
this might as well have followed from a natural 
as from a violent death ; and besides, the benefit 
which men derive from him is, by this notion, 
placed in his resurrection, and not in his death, 
which is always exhibited in the New Testament 
with marked and striking emphasis. The mo- 
tives to generous sacrifices of ease and life, in 
behalf of men, drawn from the death of Christ, 
have, therefore, no existence whenever his God- 
head and sacrifice are denied. 

4. The general and habitual exercises of the 
affections of trust, hope, joy, etc., toward 
Christ, are all interfered with by the Socinian 
doctrine. This has, in part, been stated ; but 
"if the Redeemer were not omnipresent and 
omniscient, could we be certain that he always 
hears our prayers, and knows the source and 
remedy of all our miseries ? If he were not all- 
merciful, could we be certain he must always be 
willing to pardon and relieve us ? If he were 
not all-powerful, could we be sure that he must 
always be able to support and strengthen, to 
enlighten and direct us ? Of any being less than 
God, we might suspect that his purposes might 
waver, his promises fail, his existence itself, 
perhaps, terminate ; for of every created being 
the existence must be dependent and termina- 
ble." — Dr. Graves's Spiritual Proofs of the 
Trinity. 

The language, too, I say not of the Church of 



CH. VIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



261 



Christ in all ages, for that has been formed upon 
her faith, but of the Scriptures themselves, must 
be altered and brought down to these inferior 
views. No dying saint can say, " Lord Jesus, 
receive my spirit," if he be a man like ourselves; 
and the redeemed, neither in heaven nor in 
earth, can dare to associate a creature so with 
God in Divine honors and solemn worship, as to 
unite in the chorus, "Blessing, and honor, and 
glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon 
the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever!" 

The same essential changes must be made in 
the doctrine of Divine agency in the heart of 
man and in the Church, and the same confusion 
introduced into the language of Scripture. 
" Our salvation by Christ does not consist only 
in the expiation of our sins, etc., but in commu- 
nication of Divine grace and power, to renew 
and sanctify us ; and this is everywhere in 
Scripture attributed to the Holy Spirit, as his 
peculiar office in the economy of man's salva- 
tion : it must, therefore, make a fundamental 
change in the doctrine of Divine grace and assist- 
ance, to deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
For can a creature be the universal spring and 
fountain of Divine grace and life ? Can a finite 
creature be a kind of universal soul to the whole 
Christian Church, and to every sincere member 
of it? Can a creature make such close applica- 
tion to our minds, know our thoughts, set bounds 
to our passions, inspire us with new affections 
and desires, and be more intimate to us than 
we are to ourselves ? If a creature be the only 
instrument and principle of grace, we shall soon 
be tempted either to deny the grace of God, or 
to make it only an external thing, and entertain 
very mean conceits of it. All those miraculous 
gifts which were bestowed upon the apostles and 
primitive Christians for the edification of the 
Church, all the graces of the Christian life, are 
the fruits of the Spirit. The Divine Spirit is 
the principle of immortality in us, which first 
gave lifo to our souls, and will, at the last day, 
raise our dead bodies out of the dust: works 
which sufficiently proclaim him to be God, and 
which we cannot heartily believe, in the gospel 
notion, if he be not. (Sherlock's Vindication.) 
All this has been felt so forcibly by the deniers 
of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, that they 
have escaped only by taking another leap down 
the gulf of error; and, at present, the Socinians 
deny that there is any Holy Ghost, and resolve 
the whole into a figure of speech. 

But the importance of the doctrino of the 
holy trinity may be finally argued from the man- 
ner in which the denial of it would affect the 
credit of the Holy Scriptures themselves ; for if 
this doctrino be not contained in them, their ten- 



dency to mislead is obvious. Their constant 
language is so adapted to deceive, and even to 
compel the belief of falsehood, even in funda- 
mental points, and to lead to the practice of 
idolatry itself, that they would lose all claim to 
be regarded as a revelation from the God of 
truth, and ought rather to be shunned than to 
be studied. A great part of the Scriptures is 
directed against idolatry, which is declared to 
be "that abominable thing which the Lord 
hateth;" and, in pursuance of this design, the 
doctrine that there is but one God is laid down 
in the most explicit terms, and constantly con- 
firmed by appeals to his works. The very first 
command in the decalogue is, " Thou shalt have 
no other gods before me ;" and the sum of the 
law, as to our duty to God, is that we love him 
«'with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and 
strength." If the doctrine of a trinity of Divine 
persons in the unity of the Godhead be consist- 
ent with all this, then the style and manner of 
the Scriptures are in perfect accordance with 
the moral ends they propose, and the truths in 
which they would instruct mankind ; but if the 
Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures, then is 
the language of the sacred books most deceptive 
and dangerous. For how is it to be accounted 
for in that case that, in the Old Testament, God 
should be spoken of in plural terms, and that 
this plurality should be restricted to three ? 
How is it that the very name Jehovah should be 
given to each of them, and that repeatedly and 
on the most solemn occasions ? How is it that 
the promised incarnate Messiah should be in- 
vested, in the prophecies of his advent, with the 
loftiest attributes of God, and that works infi- 
nitely superhuman, and Divine honors, should 
be predicated of him ? And that acts and char- 
acters of unequivocal Divinity, according to the 
common apprehension of mankind, should be 
ascribed to the Spirit also ? How is it that, in 
the New Testament, the name of God should be 
given to both, and that without any intimation 
that it is to be taken in an inferior sense ? That 
the creation and conservation of all things should 
be ascribed to Christ : that he should be wor- 
shipped by angels and by men : that ho should 
be represented as seated on the throne of the 
universe, to receive the adorations of all crea- 
tures ; and that in the very form of initiation by 
baptism into his Church, itself a public and 
solemn profession of faith, the baptism is on- 
joined to be performed in the one name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? One God and 
two creatures! As though the very door of 
entrance into the Christian Church should haVG 
boon purposely mado the gate of the worst ami 
most corrupting error ever introduced among 



262 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



mankind — trust and ivorship in creatures as God: 
the error which has spread darkness and moral 
desolation over the whole pagan world ! 

And here it cannot be said that the question is 
begged, that more is taken for granted than the 
Socinians will allow ; for this argument does not 
rest at all upon what the deniers of our Lord's 
Divinity understand by all these terms, and 
what interpretations may be put upon them. 
This is the popular view of the subject which 
has just been drawn from the Scriptures ; and 
they themselves acknowledge it by resorting to 
the arts and labors of far-fetched criticism, in 
order to attach to these passages of Scripture a 
sense different to the obvious and popular one. 
But it is not merely the popular sense of Scrip- 
ture. It is so taken, and has been taken in all 
ages, by the wisest men and most competent 
critics, to be the only consistent sense of the 
sacred volume : a circumstance which still more 
strongly proves that if the Scriptures were 
written on Socinian principles, they are more 
unfortunately expressed than any book in the 
world; and they can on no account be considered 
a Divine revelation, not because of their ob- 
scurity, for they are not obscure, but because 
terms are used in them which convey a sense 
different from what the writers intended, if, 
indeed, they were Socinians. But their evi- 
dences prove them to be a revelation of truth 
from the God of truth, and they cannot, there- 
fore, be so written as to lead men who use only 
ordinary care into fundamental error ; and the 
conclusion, therefore, must inevitably be, that if 
we must admit either, on the one hand, what is 
so derogatory to the Scriptures, and so subver- 
sive of all confidence in them, or, on the other, 
that the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son and 
Holy Spirit is there explicitly taught, there is no 
medium between absolute infidelity and the ac- 
knowledgment of our Lord's Divinity ; and, 
indeed, to adopt the representation of a great 
divine, it is rather to rave than to reason, to 
suppose that he whom the Scriptures teach us 
to regard as the Saviour of our souls, and as our 
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and re- 
demption : he who hears our prayers, and is 
always present with his Church throughout the 
world, who sits at the right hand of God, in the 
glory of his Father, and who shall come at the 
last day in glory and majesty, accompanied with 
ministering angels, to judge all mankind and to 
bring to light the very secrets of their hearts, 
should be a mere man or a created being of any 
kind.i 



1 OiKovu/ila, quae ipsi tribuitur, deoloyiav necessario 
supponit, ipsumque omnino statuit. Quid enim? Messiam 



[PART II. 

I close this view of the importance of the 
doctrine of the trinity by the observations of 
Dr. "Waterland : 

"While we consider the doctrine of the trinity 
as interwoven with the very frame and tex- 
ture of the Christian religion, it appears to me 
natural to conceive that the whole scheme and 
economy of man's redemption was laid with a 
principal view to it, in order to bring mankind 
gradually into an acquaintance with the three 
Divine persons, one God blessed for ever. I 
would speak with all due modesty, caution, and 
reverence, as becomes us always in what con- 
cerns the unsearchable councils of Heaven ; but 
I say there appears to me none so natural, or so 
probable an account of the Divine dispensations, 
from first to last, as what I have just mentioned, 
namely, that such a redemption was provided, 
such an expiation for sins required, such a 
method of sanctification appointed, and then 
revealed, that so men might know that there are 
three Divine persons, might be apprised how 
infinitely the world is indebted to them, and 
might accordingly be both instructed and in- 
clined to love, honor, and adore them here, be- 
cause that must be a considerable part of their 
employment and happiness hereafter." — Import- 
ance of the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

In order to bring this great controversy in 
such an order before the reader as may assist 
him to enter with advantage into it, I shall first 
carefully collect the leading testimonies of Scrip- 
ture on the doctrine of the trinity and the Di- 
vinity of the Son and Holy Spirit : adduce the 
opinions of the Jewish and Christian churches : 
answer objections: explain the chief modern 
heresies on this subject, and give their scrip- 
tural confutation. An observation or two on 
the difficulties in which the doctrine of a trinity 
of persons in the unity of one undivided God- 
head is said to involve us, may properly close 
this chapter. 

Mere difficulty in conceiving of what is wholly 
proper and peculiar to God, forms no objection 
to a doctrine. It is more rationally to be con- 

sive Christum predicant sacrae nostrae literae et credere 
nos profitemur omnes, qui sit animarum sospitator, qui 
nobis sit sapientia, justitia, sanctificatio et redemptio — qui 
preces suorum, ubivis sacrosanctum ejus nomen invocan- 
tiurn, illico exaudiat — qui ecclesiae suae per universum ter- 
rarum orbem disseminata*, semper praesto sit — qui Deo 
Patri, ovvdpovog, et in eadem sede collocatus sit— qui 
denique, in exitu mundi, immensa gloria et majestate 
refulgens, angelis ministris stipatus, veniet orbem judica- 
tures, non modo facta omnia, sed et cordis secreta omnium 
quotquot fuere bominum in lucem proditurus, etc. llrcc- 
cine omnia in purum hominem, aut creaturam aliquam 
competere? Fidenter dico, qui ita sentiat, non modo con- 
tra Fidem, sed et raiionem ipsam insanire. — Bull. Judic. 
Eccl. Ccdh. 



CH. IX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



263 



sidered as a presumption of its truth, since in 
the nature of God there must be mysteries far 
above the reach of the human mind. All his 
natural attributes, though of some of them we 
have images in ourselves, are utterly incompre- 
hensible ; and the manner of his existence cannot 
be less so. All attempts, however, to show that 
this great doctrine implies a contradiction, have 
failed. A contradiction is only where two con- 
traries are predicated of the same thing, and in the 
same respect. Let this be kept in view, and the 
sophisms resorted to on this point by the adver- 
saries of the faith will be easily detected. They 
urge that the same thing cannot be three and 
one — that is, if the proposition has any meaning 
at all, not in the same respect : the three persons 
are not one person, and the one God is not three 
Gods. But it is no contradiction to say, that in 
different respects the three may be one : that is, 
that in respect of persons they shall be three, and 
in respect of Godhead, essence, or nature, they 
shall be one. The manner of the thing is a per- 
fectly distinct question, and its incomprehensi- 
bility proves nothing but that we are finite 
creatures, and not God. As for difficulties, we 
shall certainly not be relieved by running either 
to the Arian or the Socinian hypothesis. The 
one ascribes the first formation and the perpetual 
government of the universe, not to the Deity, 
but to the wisdom and power of a creature ; for, 
however exalted the Arian inferior Deity may be, 
he is a creature still. The other makes a mere 
man the creator of all things ; for whatever is 
meant by u the Word in St. John's Gospel, it is 
the same Word of which the evangelist says, 
that all things were made by it, and that itself 
was made flesh. If this Word be the Divine 
attribute wisdom, then that attribute in the degree 
which was equal to the formation of the universe, 
in this view of the Scripture doctrine, was con- 
veyed entire into the mind of a mere man, the 
son of a Jewish carpenter! — a much greater 
difficulty, in my apprehension, than any that is 
to be found in the catholic faith." — Horsley's 
Letters. 



CHAPTER IX. 

TRINITY — SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 

In adducing tho doctrine of a trinity of Divine 
persons in tho unity of the Godhead from tho 
sacred volume, by exhibiting some of its numerous 
and decisive testimonies as to this being the mode 
in which the Divine nature subsists, tho explicit 
manner in which it is there laid down that there 
is but one God must again bo noticed. 



This is the foundation and the keystone of the 
whole fabric of scriptural theology; and every 
argument in favor of the trinity flows from this 
principle of the absolute unity of God, a princi- 
ple which the heresies at which we have glanced 
fancy to be inconsistent with the orthodox doc- 
trine. 

The solemn and unequivocal manner in which 
the unity of God is stated as a doctrine, and is 
placed as the foundation of all true religion, 
whether devotional or practical, need not again 
be repeated ; and it is here sufficient to refer to 
the chapter on the unity of God. 

Of this one God, the high and peculiar, and, 
as it has been truly called, the appropriate name, 
is Jehovah ; which, like all the Hebrew names 
of God, is not an insignificant and accidental 
term, but a name of revelation, a name adopted 
by God himself for the purpose of making known 
the mystery of his nature. To what has been 
already said on this appellation, I may add that 
the most eminent critics derive it from mil, fuit 
existit; which in Kal signifies to be, and in Hiphel 
to cause to be. Buxtorf, in his definition, includes 
both these ideas, and makes it signify a being 
existing from himself from everlasting to ever- 
lasting, and communicating existence to others, 
and adds, that it signifies the Being who is, and 
was, and is to come. Its derivation has been 
variously stated by critics, and some fanciful 
notions have been formed of the import of its 
several letters ; but in this idea of absolute 
existence all agree. "It is acknowledged by 
all," says Bishop Pearson, "that HW is from 
iflfi or iTil, and God's own interpretation proves 
no less, Exodus iii. 14. Some contend that 
futurition is essential to the name, yet all agree 
the root signifieth nothing but essence or existence, 
that is, to elvai or virdpxEiv." (Exposition of the 
Creed.) No appellation of the Divine Being 
could therefore be more distinctive, than that 
which imports independent and eternal being; 
and for this reason probably it was that the 
Jews, up to a very high antiquity, had a singular 
reverence for it ; carried, it is true, to a super- 
stitious scrupulosity ; but thereby showing that 
it was the name which unveiled, to the thoughts 
of those to whom it was first given, the awful 
and overwhelming glories of a solf-existent Being, 
— the very unfathomable depths of his eternal 
Godhead. 1 

In examining what the Scriptures teach of this 
self-existent and eternal Being, our attention is 

1 Maimonidcs tells us, that it was not lawful to utter this 
name, exoept In the sanctuary, and by the priests. " Nomen, 
quod, ut nosti, noii proferre licet, nisi In sanotuarlo, e1 ■ 
sacerdotibus i>>'i sanotis, solum in benediotione Baoerdotum, 

ut ct a saccrdoto magna in die jojimii." 



264 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



first arrested by the important fact, that this one 
Jehovah is spoken of under plural appellations, 
and that not once or twice, but in a countless 
number of instances. So that the Hebrew 
names of God, acknowledged by all to be express- 
ive and declaratory of some peculiarity or excel- 
lence of his nature, are found in several cases in 
the plural as well as in the singular form, and 
one of them, Aleim, generally so ; and notwith- 
standing it was so fundamental and distinguish- 
ing an article of the Jewish faith, in opposition 
to the polytheism of almost all other nations, 
there was but one living and true God. I give a 
few instances. Jehovah, if it has not a plural 
form, has more than one personal application. 
"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon 
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out 
of heaven." We have here the visible Jehovah 
who had talked with Abraham, raining the storm 
of vengeance from another Jehovah, out of 
heaven, and who was therefore invisible. Thus 
we have two Jehovahs expressly mentioned, 
"the Lord rained from the Lord," and yet we 
have it most solemnly asserted in Deut. vi. 4, 
"Hear, Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jeho- 
vah." 

The very first name in the Scriptures under 
which the Divine Being is introduced to us as the 
Creator of heaven and earth, is a plural one, 
BT£>K, Aleim ; and to connect in the same singu- 
lar manner as in the foregoing instance, plurality 
with unity, it is the nominative case to a verb 
singular. "In the beginning, Gods created the 
heavens and the earth." Of this form innumera- 
ble instances occur in the Old Testament. That 
the word is plural, is made certain by its being 
often joined with adjectives, pronouns, and verbs 
plural ; and yet when it can mean nothing else 
than the true God, it is generally joined in its 
plural form with verbs singular. To render 
this still more striking, the Aleim are said to be 
Jehovah, and Jehovah the Aleim : thus in Psalm 
C. 3, "Know ye, that Jehovah, he, the Aleim, he 
hath made us, and not we ourselves." And in 
the passage before given, "Jehovah our Albim, 
(Gods,) is one Jehovah." ?x, Al, the mighty 
one, another name of God, has its plural £-;n, 
Alim, the mighty ones. The former is rendered 
by Trommius Qebc, the latter Qeoi. T-N, Abir, 
the potent one, has the plural dTdK, Abirim, 
the potent ones. Man did eat the bread of the 
Abirim, "angels' food," conveys no idea: the 
manna was the bread provided miraculously, and 
was therefore called the food of the powerful 
ones, of them who have power over all nature, 
the one God. 

tWTlK, Adoxim, is the plural form of jYttt, 
Adox, a governor. "If I be Adonim, masters, 



[part n. 

where is my fear ?" Mai. i. 6. Many other in- 
stances might be given, as, "Remember thy 
Creators in the days of thy youth." "The know- 
ledge of the Holy Ones is understanding." 
" There be higher than they." Heb. High Ones; 
and in Daniel, "the Watchers and the Holy Ones." 

Other plural forms of speech also occur when 
the one true God only is spoken of. "And 
God said, Let us make man in our own image, 
after our likeness." "And the Lord God said, 
Behold the man is become like one of us." "And 
the Lord said, Let us go down." "Because there 
God appeared to him." Heb. God they appeared, 
the verb being plural. These instances need not 
be multiplied: they are the common forms of 
speech in the Sacred Scriptures, which no criti- 
cism has been able to resolve into mere idioms, 
and which only the doctrine of a plurality of 
persons in the unity of the Godhead can satis- 
factorily explain. K they were mere idioms, 
they could not have been misunderstood, by those 
to whom the Hebrew tongue was native, to imply 
plurality ; but of this we have sufficient evidence, 
which shall be adduced when we speak of the 
faith of the Jewish Church. They have been 
acknowledged to form a striking singularity in 
the Hebrew language, even by those who have 
objected to the conclusion drawn from them : and 
the question, therefore, has been to find an 
hypothesis which should account for a peculi- 
arity which is found in no other language, with 
the same circumstances. 1 

Some have supposed angels to be associated 
with God when these plural forms occur. For 
this there is no foundation in the texts them- 
selves, and it is besides a manifest absurdity. 
Others, that the style of royalty was adopted, 
which is refuted by two considerations — that 
Almighty God in other instances speaks in the 
singular and not in the plural number ; and that 
this was not the style of the sovereigns of the 
earth when Moses or any of the sacred penmen 
composed their writings, no instance of it being 
found in any of the inspired books. A third 
opinion is, that the plural form of speaking of 
God was adopted by the Hebrews from their 
ancestors, who were polytheists, and that the 
ancient theological term was retained after the 

l The argument for the trinity drawn from the plural 
appellations given to God in the Hebrew Scriptures, was 
opposed by the younger Buxtorf : who yet admits that this 
argument should not altogether be rejected among Chris- 
tians, " for upon the same principle on which not a few of 
the Jews refer this emphatical application of the plural 
number to a plurality of powers, or of influences, or of 
operations, that is, ad extra, why may we not refer it, ad 
intra, to a plurality of persons and to personal works? 
Yea, who certainly knoios what that was which the ancient 
Jews understood by this plurality of powers and faculties V 



CH. IX.] 

unity of God was acknowledged. This assumes, 
what is totally without proof, that the ancestors 
of the Hebrews were polytheists ; and could that 
be made out, it would leave it still to be accounted 
for, why other names of the Deity equally ancient, 
for any thing that appears to the contrary, are 
not also plural, and especially the high name of 
Jehovah ; and why, more particularly, the very 
appellation in question, AUim, should have a 
singular form also, rfcjc, in the same language. 
The grammatical reasons which have been offered 
are equally unsatisfactory. If then no hypo- 
thesis explains this peculiarity, but that which 
concludes it to indicate that mode of the Divine 
existence which was expressed in later theology 
by the phrase, a trinity of persons, the inference 
is too powerful to be easily resisted, that these 
plural forms must be considered as intended to 
intimate the plurality of persons in essential 
connection with one supreme and adorable Deity. 

This argument, however, taken alone, power- 
ful as it has often been justly deemed, does not 
contain the strength of the case. For natural 
as it is to expect, presuming this to be the mode 
of the Divine existence, that some of his names, 
which, according to the expressive and simple 
character of the Hebrew language, are descrip- 
tions of realities, and that some of the modes of 
expression adopted even in the earliest revela- 
tions, should carry some intimation of a fact, 
which, as essentially connected with redemption, 
the future complete revelation of the redeeming 
scheme was intended fully to unfold, yet, were 
these plural titles and forms of construction 
blotted out, the evidence of a plurality of Divine 
persons in the Godhead would still remain in its 
strongest form. For that evidence is not merely 
that God has revealed himself under plural 
appellations, nor that these are constructed with 
sometimes singular and sometimes plural forms 
of speech, but that three persons, and three 
persons only, are spoken of in the Scriptures 
under Divine titles, each having the peculiar 
attributes of Divinity ascribed to him ; and yet 
that the first and leading principle of the same 
book, which speaks thus of the character and 
works of these persons, should be, that there is 
but one God. This point being once established, 
it may be asked, Which of the hypotheses, the 
orthodox, the Arian, or the Socinian, agrees best 
With this plain and explicit doctrine of Holy 
Writ? Plain and explicit, I say, not as to the 
mode of tho Divino existence, not as to the com- 
prehension of it, but as to this particular, that the 
doctrine itself is plainly stated in tho Scriptures. 

Let this point then be examined, and it will bo 
Been even that tho very number three has this 
preeminence ; that tho application of these names 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY 



265 



and powers is restrained to it, and never strays 
beyond it; and that those who confide in the 
testimony of God rather than in the opinions of 
men, have sufficient scriptural reason to dis- 
tinguish their faith from the unbelief of others 
by avowing themselves Trinitarians. 1 

The solemn form of benediction, in which the 
Jewish high-priests were commanded to bless the 
children of Israel, has in it this peculiar indica- 
tion, and singularly answers to the form of 
benediction contained in 2 Corinthians xiii. 14, 
and which so appropriately closes the solemn 
services of Christian worship. It is given in 
Numbers vi. 24-27 : 

Jehovah bless thee and keep thee : 

Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious 

unto thee : 
Jehovah lift his countenance upon thee, and give thee 
peace. 

If the three members of this form of benedic- 
tion be attentively considered, they will be found 
to agree respectively to the three persons taken 
in the usual order of the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost. The Father is the author of 
blessing and preservation, illumination and grace 
are from the Son, illumination and peace from the 
Spirit, the teacher of truth, and the Comforter. 
[Vide Jones's Catholic Doctrine.) 

"The first member of the formula expresses 
the benevolent 'love of God,' the Father of 
mercies and fountain of all good: the second 
well comports with the redeeming and reconcil- 
ing 'grace of our Lord Jesus Christ;' and the 
last is appropriate to the purity, consolation, and 
joy which are received from the ' communion of 
the Holy Spirit.'" — Smith's Person of Christ. 

The connection of certain specific blessings in 
this form of benediction with the Jehovah 
mentioned three times distinctly, and those 
which are represented as flowing from the 
Father, Son, and Spirit in the apostolic form, 
would be a singular coincidence if it even stood 
alone ; but the light of the same eminent truth, 
though not yet fully revealed, breaks forth from 
other partings of the clouds of the early morn- 
ing of revelation. 

The inner part of the Jewish sanctuary was 
called the holy of holies, that is, the holy place 
of tho Iloly Ones ; and the number of these is 
indicated and limited to three in the celebrated 
vision of Isaiah, and that with great explicitness. 
The scene of that vision is the holy place of tho 
temple, and lies, therefore, in the very abode and 
residence of the Holy Ones, hero celebrated by 
tho seraphs who veiled their faces beforo them. 
And one cried unto another, and said, "Holy, 

1 Tho word Tpiuc, trinitas, came into use in the second 
century. 



266 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



holy, holy is the Lord of hosts." This passage, 
if it stood alone, might be eluded by saying that 
this act of Divine adoration here mentioned is 
merely emphatic, or in the Hebrew mode of ex- 
pressing a superlative ; though that is assumed, 
and by no means proved. It is, however, worthy 
of serious notice that this distinct trine act of 
adoration, which has so often been supposed to 
mark a plurality of persons as the objects of it, 
is answered by a voice from that excellent glory 
which overwhelmed the mind of the prophet 
when he was favored with the vision, responding 
in the same language of plurality in which the 
doxology of the seraphs is expressed. "Also I 
heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall 
I send, and who will go for us ?" But this is 
not the only evidence that in this passage the 
Holy Ones, who were addressed each by his 
appropriate and equal designation of holy, were 
the three Divine subsistences in the Godhead. 
The Being addressed is the "Lord of hosts." 
This all acknowledge to include the Father ; but 
the Evangelist John, xii. 41, in manifest refer- 
ence to this transaction, observes, "These things 
said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) glory and 
spake of him." In this vision, therefore, we 
have the Son also, whose glory on this occasion 
the prophet is said to have beheld. Acts xxviii. 
25, determines that there was also the presence 
of the Holy Ghost. " Well spake the Holy Ghost 
by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, 
Go unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall 
hear and not understand, and seeing ye shall see 
and not perceive," etc. These words, quoted 
from Isaiah, the Apostle Paul declares to have 
been spoken by the Holy Ghost, and Isaiah 
declares them to have been spoken on this very 
occasion by the " Lord of hosts." "And he said, 
Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed and 
understand not, and see ye indeed but perceive 
not," etc. 

Now let all these circumstances be placed to- 
gether — the place, the holy place of the Holy 
Ones : the repetition of the homage, three times, 
Holy, holy, holy — the one Jehovah of hosts, to 
whom it was addressed, — the plural pronoun 
used by this one Jehovah, us : the declaration 
of an evangelist, that on this occasion Isaiah saw 
the glory of Christ : the declaration of St. Paul, 
that the Lord of hosts who spoke on that very 
occasion was the Holt Ghost ; and the conclusion 
will not appear to be without most powerful 
authority, both circumstantial and declaratory, 
that the adoration, Holy, holy, holy, referred to 
the Divine three, in the one essence of the Lord 
of hosts. Accordingly, in the book of Revela- 
tion, where "the Lamb" is so constantly repre- 
sented as sitting upon the Divine throne, and 



[PART II. 

where he by name is associated with the Father, 
as the object of the equal homage and praise of 
saints and angels, this scene from Isaiah is 
transferred into the fourth chapter, and the 
"living creatures," the seraphim of the prophet, 
are heard in the same strain, and with the same 
trine repetition, saying, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord 
God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." 
Isaiah, xlviii. 16, also makes this threefold dis- 
tinction and limitation. "And now the Lord 
God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." The words 
are manifestly spoken by Messiah, who declares 
himself sent by the Lord God, and by his Spirit. 
Some render it, hath sent me and his Spirit, the 
latter term being also in the accusative case. 
This strengthens the application, by bringing the 
phrase nearer to that so often used by our Lord 
in his discourses, who speaks of himself and the 
Spirit being sent by the Father. " The Father 
which sent, me — the Comforter whom I will send 
unto you from the Father, who proceedeth from 
the Father." Isaiah xxxiv. 16, " Seek ye out 
of the book of the Lord, and read, for my mouth 
it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath 
gathered them." "Here is one person speaking 
of the Spirit, another person." (Jones on the 
Trinity.) Hag. ii. 4-7, "I am with you, saith 
the Lord of hosts : according to the word that I 
covenanted with you when ye came out of 
Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you : fear 
ye not. For thus saith the Lord of hosts, I will 
shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations 
shall come." Here also we have three persons 
distinctly mentioned: the Lord of hosts, his 
Spirit, and the Desire of all nations. 

Many other passages might be given, in which 
there is this change of persons, sometimes enu- 
merating two, sometimes three, but never more 
than three, arrayed in these eminent and Divine 
characters. The passages in the New Testament 
are familiar to everyone: "Baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost." "The grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, the love of God, and the communion of 
the Holy Ghost:" with others in which the sacred 
three, and three only, are thus collocated as objects 
of equal trust and honor, and equally the fountain 
and the source of grace and benediction. 

On the celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7— 
" There are three that bear record in heaven," I 
say nothing, because authorities against its 
genuineness are found in the ranks of the ortho- 
dox, and among those who do not captiously 
make objections ; and because it would scarcely 
be fair to adduce it as a proof, unless the argu- 
ments on each side were exhibited, which would 
lead to discussions which lie beside the design of 
this work, and more properly have their place in 



CH. IX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



267 



separate and distinct treatises. The recent 
revival of the inquiry into the genuineness of 
this text, however, shows that the point is far 
from being critically settled against the passage, 
as a true portion of holy writ, and the argument 
from the context is altogether in favor of those 
who advocate it, the hiatus in the sense never 
having been satisfactorily supplied by those who 
reject it. This is of more weight in arguments 
of this kind than is often allowed. As to the 
doctrine of the text, it has elsewhere abundant 
proof. 

It has now been shown that while the unity of 
God is to be considered a fundamental doctrine 
of the Scriptures, laid down with the utmost 
solemnity, and guarded with the utmost care, by 
precepts, by threatenings, by promises, by tre- 
mendous punishments of polytheism and idolatry 
among the Jews, the very names of God, as given 
in the revelation made of himself, have plural 
forms, and are connected with plural modes of 
speech : that other indications of plurality are 
given in various parts of Holy Writ ; and that 
this plurality is restricted to three. On those 
texts, however, which in their terms denote a 
plurality and a trinity, the proof does not wholly 
or chiefly rest; and they have been only adduced 
as introductory to instances too numerous to be 
all examined, in which two distinct persons are 
spoken of, sometimes connectedly and sometimes 
separately, as associated with God in his perfec- 
tions and incommunicable glories, and as per- 
forming works of unequivocal Divine majesty 
and infinite power, and thus together manifesting 
that tri-unity of the Godhead which the true 
Church has in all ages adored and magnified. 
This is the great proof upon which the doctrine 
rests. The first of these two persons is the Son, 
the second the Spirit. Of the former, it will be 
observed that the titles of Jehovah, Lord, God, 
King, King of Israel, Redeemer, Saviour, and 
other names of God, are ascribed to him, — that 
he is invested with the attributes of eternity, 
omnipotence, ubiquity, infinite wisdom, holiness, 
goodness, etc., — that he was the Leader, the 
visible King, and the object of the worship of 
the Jews, — that he forms the great subject of 
prophecy, and is spoken of in the predictions of 
the prophets in language which, if applied to 
men or to angels, would by the Jews have been 
considered not as sacred but idolatrous, and 
Which, therefore, except that it agreed with their 
ancient faith, would totally have destroyed the 
credit of those writings, — that he is eminently 
known both in the Old Testament and in the 
New as tho Son of God, an appellativo which is 
Sufficiently proved to have been considered as 
implying an assumption of Divinity by tho cir- 



cumstance that, for asserting it, our Lord was 
condemned to die as a blasphemer by the Jewish 
sanhedrim, — that he became incarnate in our 
nature, — wrought miracles by his own original 
power, and not, as his servants, in the name of 
another, — that he authoritatively forgave sin, — 
that for the sake of his sacrifice, sin is forgiven 
to the end of the world, and for the sake of that 
alone, — that he rose from the dead to seal all 
these pretensions to Divinity, — that he is seated 
upon the throne of the universe, all power being 
given to him in heaven and in earth, — that his 
inspired apostles exhibit him as the Creator of all 
things visible and invisible ; as the true God and 
the eternal life ; as the King eternal, immortal, 
invisible, the only wise God and our Saviour, — 
that they offer to him the highest worship, — that 
they trust in him, and command all others to 
trust in him for eternal life, — that he is the head 
over all things, — that angels worship him and 
render him service, — that he will raise the dead 
at the last day, — judge the secrets of men's 
hearts, and finally determine the everlasting 
state of the righteous and the wicked. 

This is the outline of scriptural testimony as to 
the Son. As to the Divine character of the Spirit, 
it is equally explicit. He too is called Jehovah 
— Jehovah of hosts — God. Eternity, omnipo- 
tence, ubiquity, infinite wisdom, and other attri- 
butes of Deity, are ascribed to him. He is 
introduced as an agent in the work of the crea- 
tion, and to him is ascribed the conservation of 
all living beings. He is the source of the inspi- 
ration of prophets and apostles — the object of 
worship — the efficient agent in illuminating, 
comforting, and sanctifying the souls of men. 
He makes intercession for the saints, quickens 
the dead, and, finally, he is associated with the 
Father and the Son, in the form of baptism into 
the one name of God, and in the apostolic form 
of benediction, as equally with them the source 
and fountain of grace and blessedness. These 
decisive points I shall proceed to establish by the 
express declarations of various passages, both 
of the Old and New Testament. "When that is 
done, the argument will then be that as, on the 
one hand, the doctrine of Scripture is that there 
is but one God ; and, on the other, that throughout 
both Testaments three persons are, in unequivo- 
cal language, and by unequivocal circumstanoes, 
declared to be Divine ; the only conclusion which 
can harmonize these otherwise opposite, contra- 
dictory, and most misleading propositions and 
declarations, is that the three persons aee one 
God. 

In the prevalent faith of the Christian Churoh, 
neither of these views is for a moment lost sight 
of. Thus it exactly harmonises with the Serin- 



268 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



tures, nor can it be charged with greater mystery 
than is assignable to them. The trinity is 
asserted, bnt the unity is not obscured : the unity 
is confessed, but without denial of the trinity. 
No figures of speech, no unnatural modes of 
interpretation are resorted to, to reconcile these 
views with human conceptions, which they must 
infinitely transcend. This is the character of the 
heresies which hare arisen on this subject. They 
all spring from the attempt to make this mystery 
of God conceivable by the human mind, and less 
a stone of stumbling to the pride of reason. On 
the contrary, "the faith of God's elect," as 
embodied in the creeds and confessions of all 
truly evangelical Churches, follows the example 
of the Scriptures in entirely overlooking these 
low considerations, and "declaring the thing as 
it is," with all its mystery and incomprehensible- 
ness, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the 
Greeks foolishness. It declares "that we wor- 
ship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity; 
neither confounding the persons, nor dividing 
the substance; for there is one person of the 
Father, another of the Son, and another of the 
Holy Ghost ; but the Godhead of the Father, of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one : the 
glory equal, the majesty coeternal. So the 
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy 
Ghost is God ; and yet there are not three Gods, 
but one God." [Athanasian Creed.) Or, as it is 
well expressed by an eminent modern, as great a 
master of reason and science as he was of theo- 
logy: "There is one Divine nature or essence, 
common unto three persons, incomprehensibly 
united, and ineffably distinguished: united in 
essential attributes, distinguished by peculiar 
idioms and relations : all equally infinite in every 
Divine perfection, each different from the other 
in order and manner of subsistence : that there 
is a mutual existence of one in all, and all in 
one : a communication without any deprivation 
or diminution in the communicant: an eternal 
generation, and an eternal procession without 
precedence or succession, without proper causa- 
lity or dependence : a Father imparting his own, 
and a Son receiving his Father's life, and a Spirit 
issuing from both, without any division or mul- 
tiplication of essence. These are notions which 
may well puzzle our reason in conceiving how 
they agree, but ought not to stagger our faith in 
asserting that they are true ; for if the Holy 
Scripture teacheth us plainly, and frequently i 
doth inculcate upon us that there is but one true I 
God — if it as manifestly doth ascribe to the three j 
persons of the blessed trinity the same august ' 
names, the same peculiar characters, the same 
Divine attributes, the same superlatively admira- 
ble operations of creation and providence — if it | 



[part n. 



also doth prescribe to them the same supreme 
honors, services, praises, and acknowledgments 
to be paid to them all — this may be abundantly 
enough to satisfy our minds, to stop our mouths, 
to smother all doubt and dispute about this high 
and holy mystery."— Dr. Barrow's Defence of 
the Trinity. 

One observation more, before we proceed to the 
scriptural evidence of the positions above laid 
down, shall close this chapter. The proof of 
I the doctrine of the trinity, I have said, grounds 
; itself on the firm foundation of the Divine unity, 
and it closes with it ; and this may set the true 
believer at rest, when he is assailed by the sophis- 
tical enemies of his faith with the charge of 
dividing his regards, as he directs his prayers to 
one or other of the three persons of the God- 
head. For the time at least, he is said to honor 
one to the exclusion of the others. The true 
scriptural doctrine of the unity of God will re- 
move this objection. It is not the Socinian 
notion of unity. Theirs is the unity of one, ours 
the unity of three. We do not, however, as they 
seem to suppose, think the Divine essence divisi- 
ble, and participated by, and shared amony, three 
persons ; but wholly and undividedly possessed 
and enjoyed. Whether, therefore, we address our 
prayers and adorations to the Father, Son, or 
Holy Ghost, we address the same adorable Beiny, 
the one liviny and true God. "Jehovah, our 
Aleim, is one Jehovah." With reference to the 
relations which each person bears to us in 
the redeeming economy, our approaches to the 
Father are to be made through the mediation of 
the Son, and by, or with dependence upon, the 
assistance of the Holy Spirit. Yet, as the au- 
thority of the New Testament shows, this does 
not preclude direct prayer to Christ and to the 
Holy Spirit, and direct ascriptions of glory and 
honor to each. In all this we glorify the one 
"God over all, blessed for evermore." 



CHAPTER X. 

TRINITY — PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. 

By establishing, on scriptural authority, the 
preexistence of our Lord, we take the first step 
in the demonstration of his absolute Divinity. 
His preexistence, indeed, simply considered, does 
not evince his Godhead, and is not, therefore, a 
proof against the Arian hypothesis ; but it de- 
stroys the Socinian notion that he was a man 
only. For since no one contends for the preex- 
istence of human souls, and, if they did, the 
doctrine would be refuted by their own con- 



CH. X.] 

sciousness, it is clear that if Christ existed before 
his incarnation, he is not a mere man, whatever 
his nature, by other arguments, may be proved 
to be. 

This point has been felt to press so heavily 
upon the doctrine of the simple humanity of 
Christ, that both ancient and modern Socinians 
have bent against it all those arts of interpreta- 
tion which, more than any thing else, show both 
the hopelessness of their cause, and the perti- 
nacity with which they cling to oft and easily 
refuted error. I shall dwell a little on this point, 
because it will introduce some instances in illus- 
tration of the peculiar character of the Socinian 
mode of perverting the Scriptures. 

The existence of our Lord prior to his incarna- 
tion might be forcibly argued from the declara- 
tions that he was "sent into the world:" that 
"he came in the flesh:" that "he took part of 
flesh and blood:" that he was "found in fashion 
as a man;" and other similar phrases. These 
are modes of speech which are used of no other 
person : which are never adopted to express the 
natural birth, and the commencement of the ex- 
istence of ordinary men ; and which Socinianism, 
therefore, leaves without a reason, and without 
an explanation, when used of Christ. But argu- 
ments drawn from these phrases are rendered 
wholly unnecessary, by the frequent occurrence 
of passages which explicitly declare his pree'x- 
istence, and by which the ingenuity of unsub- 
missive criticism has been always foiled: the 
interpretations given being too forced, and too 
unsupported, either by the common rules of criti- 
cism, or by the idioms of language, to produce 
the least impression upon any, not previously 
disposed to torture the word of God in order to 
make it subservient to an error. 

The first of these proofs of the preexistence 
of Christ is from the testimony of the Baptist, 
John i. 15 : " He that cometh after me is pre- 
ferred before me, for he was before me;" or, as it 
is in verse 80, "After me cometh a man which is 
preferred before me, for he was before me." 

The Socinian exposition is, " The Christ, who 
is to begin his ministry after me, has, by the 
Divine appointment, been preferred before me, 
because he is my chief or principal." Thus 
they interpret the last clause, " for he was before 
me," in the sense of dignity, and not of time, 
though St. John uses the same word to denote 
priority of time in several places of his Gospel : 
"If the world hate you, you know that it hated 
me before it hated you;" and ch. i. 41 ; viii. 7; 
xx. 4-8. If they take the phrase in the second 
clause, tftirpoadev fxov yiyovEV, in the sense of 
"preferred," then, by their mode of rendering tho 
last clause, as Bishop Pearson has observed, "a 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



269 



thing is made the reason of itself, which is a 
great absurdity and a vain tautology." — "He is 
preferred before me, because he is my chief;" 
whereas, by taking izpuroc /uov in the sense of 
time, a reason for this preference is given. There 
is, however, another rendering of the second 
clause, which makes the passage still more 
impracticable in the sense of the Socinians. 
"'Efiirpoadei' is never in the Septuagint or in the 
New Testament used for dignity or rank ; but 
refers either to place or time, and if taken in the 
sense of time, the rendering will be, "He that 
cometh after me was before me ;" and on, in 
the next clause, signifying "certainly,'' "truly," 
[Schleusner sub voce,) the last clause will be made 
emphatical, "certainly, he was before me," and 
is to be considered, not as giving a reason for the 
sentiment in the preceding clause, or as tautolo- 
gical, but as explanatory and impressive ; a 
mode of speaking exceedingly natural when so 
great a doctrine and so high a mystery was to 
be declared, that he who was born after John, 
was yet, in point of existence, before him — 
"certainly, he was before me." This rendering 
of the second clause is adopted by several eminent 
critics ; but whether this or the common version 
be preferred, the verb in the last clause, he was 
before me, sufficiently fixes irpurog in the sense 
of priority of time. Had it referred to the rank 
and dignity of Christ, it would not have been, 
"he was," but "he is before me," eorl, not rjv. 

The passages which express that Christ came 
down from heaven, are next to be considered. He 
styles himself "the bread of God which cometh 
down from heaven. — The living bread which came 
down from heaven. — He that cometh from above is 
above all : he that is of the earth is earthly, and 
speaketh of the earth : he that cometh from heaven 
is above all;" and in his discourse with Nicode- 
mus, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but 
he that came down from heaven, even the Son of 
man which is in heaven." In what manner are 
declarations so plain and unequivocal to be 
eluded, and by what arts are they to be inter- 
preted into nothing? This shall be considered. 
Socinus and his early disciples, in order to 
account for these phrases, supposed that Christ, 
between the time of his birth and entrance upon 
his office, was translated into heaven, and there 
remained some time, that he might see and hear 
those things which he was to publish in tho 
world. This hypothesis, however, only proves 
tho difficulty, or rather the impossibility of in- 
terpreting these passages so as to turn away 
their hostile aspect from tho errors of man. It 
is supportod by no passage of Scripture, by no 
tradition, by no reason in the nature of the tiling, 
or in the discourse The modern Socinians, 



270 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



therefore, finding the position of their elder 
brethren untenable, resolve the whole into figure, 
the most convenient method of evading the diffi- 
culty, and tell us that as we should naturally 
say that a person who would become acquainted 
with the secret purposes of God, must ascend to 
heaven to converse with him, and return to make 
them known, so our Lord's words do not neces- 
sarily imply a literal ascent and descent, but 
merely this, "that he alone was admitted to an 
intimate knowledge of the Divine will, and was 
commissioned to reveal it to men." — Belsham's 
Calm Inquiry. 

In the passages quoted above, as declarations 
of the preexistence of Christ, it will be seen that 
there are two phrases to be accounted for, — 
ascending into heaven, — and, coming down from 
heaven. The former is said to mean the being 
admitted to an intimate knowledge of the Divine 
counsels. But if this were the sense, it could 
not be true that "no man" had thus ascended 
but "the Son of man;" since Moses and all the 
prophets in succession had been admitted to "an 
intimate knowledge of the Divine counsels," and 
had been "commissioned" to reveal them. It is 
nothing to say that our Lord's acquaintance with 
the Divine counsels was more deep and compre- 
hensive. The case is not stated comparatively, 
but exclusively — "No man hath ascended into 
heaven but the Son of man:" no man but him- 
self had been in heaven. 1 Allowing, therefore, 
the principle of the Socinian gloss, it is totally 
inapplicable to the text in question, and is in 
fact directly refuted by it. 

But the principle is false, and it may be denied 
that "to ascend into heaven" is a Hebrew phrase 
to express the knowledge of high and mysterious 
things. So utterly does this pretence fail, that 
not one of the passages they adduce in proof can 
be taken in any other than its literal meaning ; 
and they are therefore, as are others, directly 
against them. Deut. xxx. 11, is first adduced. 
"Who shall go up for us into heaven, and bring 
it unto us?" This we are told we must take 
figuratively ; but then, unhappily for them, it is 
also immediately subjoined, "neither is it be- 
yond the sea, that thou shouldest say, who shall 
go over the sea for us?" If the ascent into 
heaven in the first clause is to be taken figura- 
tively, then the going beyond the sea cannot be 
taken literally, and we shall still want a figura- 
tive interpretation for this part of the declara- 
tion of Moses respecting the law, which will not 
so easily be furnished. The same observation is 
applicable to Romans x. 6, in which there is an 
adaptation of the passage in Deuteronomy to the 

1 " No man, except myself, ever was in heayen." — Pearce. 



gospel: "Who shall ascend into heaven? that 
is, to bring Christ down from above," etc., words 
which have no meaning unless place be literally 
understood, and which show that the apostle, a 
sufficient judge of Hebrew modes of expression, 
understood, in its literal sense, the passage in 
Deuteronomy. A second passage to which they 
trust, is Prov. xxx. 4: "Who hath ascended and 
descended;" but if what immediately follows be 
added, "who hath gathered the winds in his 
fists, who hath bound the waters in a garment," 
etc., it will be seen that the passage has no re- 
ference to the acquisition of knowledge by a 
servant of God, but expresses the various opera- 
tions in nature carried on by God himself. "Who 
hath done this ? What is his name, and what is 
his son's name, if thou canst tell ?" 

In Baruch iii. 29, it is asked of wisdom, "Who 
hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and 
brought her down from the clouds?" but it is 
here also added, " Or who hath gone over the sea 
for her?" Wisdom is, in this passage, clearly 
personified: a place of habitation is assigned 
her, which is to be sought out by those who 
would attain her. This apocryphal text, there- 
fore, gives no countenance to the mystical notion 
of ascending into heaven, advanced by Socinian 
expositors. 

If they then utterly fail to establish their 
forced and unnatural sense of ascending into 
heaven, let us examine whether they are more 
successful in establishing their opinion as to the 
meaning of " coming down from heaven." This, 
they say, means "to be commissioned to reveal 
the will of God to men;" (Belsham's Calm 
Inquiry;) but if so, the phrases "to ascend up 
into heaven," and "to come down from thence," 
which are manifestly opposed to each other, lose 
all their opposition in the interpretation, which 
is sufficient to show that it is, as to both, entirely 
gratuitous, arbitrary, and contradictory. For, 
as Dr. Magee has acutely remarked, "It is 
observed by the editors of the Unitarian Version, 
and enforced with much emphasis by Mr. Bel- 
sham and Dr. Carpenter, that to ' ascend into 
heaven' signifies ' to become acquainted with the 
truths of God,' and that, consequently, the 
'correlative' to this, (the opposite they should 
have said,) to 'descend from heaven,' must mean 
'to bring and to discover those truths to the 
world.' {Imp. Vers. p. 208: Calm Inq. p. 48.) 
Now, allowing all those gentlemen all they wish 
to establish as to the first clause — that to go up 
into heaven means to learn and become acquainted 
with the counsels of God — what must follow, then, 
if they reasoned justly upon their own principles? 
Plainly this, that to come down from heaven, being 
precisely the opposite of the former, must mean 



CH. X.] 

to unlearn, or to lose the knowledge of those counsels; 
so that, so far from bringing and discovering those 
counsels to mankind, our Lord must have dis- 
qualified himself from bringing any. Had, indeed, 
'ascending into heaven' meant 'bringing the 
truth (anywhere) from men,' then 'descending 
from heaven' might justly be said to mean 'bring- 
ing it back to men.' Whatever, in short, ascend- 
ing may be supposed to signify in any figure, 
descending must signify the opposite, if the 
figure be abided by ; and, therefore, if to ascend 
be to learn, to descend must be to unlearn." — 
Discourses on the Atonement. 

It is further fatal to this opinion that "if to 
come from heaven, to descend from heaven," 
etc., signify receiving a Divine commission to 
teach, or, more simply, to communicate truth 
after it has been learned, it is never used with 
reference to Moses, or to any of the prophets or 
Divinely appointed instruments who, from time 
to time, were raised up among the Jews. "We 
may, therefore, conclude, that the meaning 
attached to these phrases by Socinian writers of 
the present day, who, in this respect, as in many 
others, have ventured to step beyond their pre- 
decessors, who never denied their literal accepta- 
tion, was unknown among the Jews, and is a 
mere subterfuge to escape from the plain testi- 
mony of holy writ on a point so fatal to their 
scheme. 

The next passage which may be quoted as 
expressing, in unequivocal terms, the preexist- 
ence of Christ, occurs John vi. 62, and is, if 
possible, still more out of the reach of that kind 
of criticism which has just been exhibited. The 
occasion, too, fixes the sense beyond all perver- 
sion. Oar Lord had told the Jews that he was 
the bread of life which came down from heaven. 
This the Jews understood literally, and therefore 
asked, "Is not this the son of Joseph, whose 
father and mother we know? how is it, then, 
that he saith, / came down from heaven ?" His 
disciples, too, so understood his words, for they 
also "murmured." But our Lord, so far from 
removing that impression, so far from giving 
them the most distant hint of a mode of meeting 
the difficulty like that resorted to by Socinian 
writers, strengthens the assertion, and makes his 
profession a stumbling-block still more formid- 
able : " Doth this offend you ?" referring to what 
he had just said, that he had descended from 
heaven: "What and if ye shall see the Son of 
man ascend up where he was beeore?" Lan- 
guage cannot bo more explicit, though Mr. Bel- 
iham lias ventured to tell us that this means, 
"What if I go farther out of your reach, and 
becomo more perplexing and mysterious !" And, 
indeed, perplexing and mysterious enough would 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



271 



be the words both of Christ and his apostles, if 
they required such criticisms for their elucida- 
tion. 

The phrase, to be " sent from God," they 
think they sufficiently avert by urging that it is 
1 said of the Baptist, "There was a man sent from 
God, whose name was John." This, they urge, 
clearly evinces "that to come from God is to be 
commissioned by him. If Jesus was sent from 
God, so was John the Baptist : if the former 
came down from heaven, so did the latter." This 
reasoning must be allowed to be fallacious, if it 
can be shown that it contradicts other scriptures. 
Now our Lord says, John vi. 46, "No one hath 
seen the Father, save he who is from God, he 
(ovroc) hath seen the Father;" namely, this one 
person, for it is singular, and no one else, hath 
seen the Father. Therefore, if Christ was that 
person, as will not be disputed, John could not 
be " sent from God," in the same manner that 
Christ was. What does the Baptist say of him- 
self? Does he confirm the Socinian gloss? 
Speaking of Christ and of himself, he says, 
"He that cometh from above is above all: he that 
is of the earth is earthly : he that cometh from 
heaven is above all." John iii. 31. Here John 
contrasts his earthly origin with Christ's heavenly 
origin. Christ is "from above :" John from "the 
earth," etc rrjc yrjg. Christ is "above all," which 
he could not be if every other prophet came 
in like manner from heaven, and from above; 
and, therefore, if John was "sent from God," it 
cannot be in the same sense that Christ was 
sent from him, which is enough to silence 
the objection. (Holden's Scripture Testimonies.) 
Thus, says Dr. Nares, "we have nothing but the 
positive contradictions of the Unitarian party to 
prove to us that Christ did not come from 
heaven, though he says of himself that he did 
come from heaven : that though he declares he 
had seen the Father, he had not seen the Father: 
that though he assures us that he in a most 
peculiar and singular manner came forth from 
God, (£/c rov Qeov i^i/Wev, a strong and singular 
expression,) he came from him no otherwise than 
like the prophets of old, and his own immediate 
forerunner." — Remarks on the Imp. Version. 

Several other equally striking passages might 
claim our attention ; but it will be sufficient for 
the argument to close it with two. 

"Before Abraham was, I am." John viii. 58. 
Whether the verb eifi), "I am," may be under- 
stood to be equivalent to tho incommunicable 
name Jehovah, shall bo considered in another 
place. The obvious sense of the passage at 
least is, "Before Abraham was, or was born, I 
was in existence." Abraham, tho patriarch, was 
the person spoken of; for the Jews having said. 



272 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



"Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou 
seen Abraham?" our Lord declares, with his 
peculiarly solemn mode of introduction, "Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I 
am." I had priority of existence, "together 
with a continuation of it to the present time." 
(Pearson on the Creed.) Nor did the Jews mis- 
take his meaning, but, being filled with indigna- 
tion at so manifest a claim of Divinity, "they 
took up stones to stone him." 

How then do the Socinians dispose of this 
passage? The two hypotheses on which they 
have rested, for one would not suffice, are, first, 
"That Christ existed before the patriarch Abra- 
ham had become, according to the import of his 
name, the father of many nations, that is, before 
the Gentiles were called:" which was as true of 
the Jews who were discoursing with him, as of 
himself. The second is, "before Abraham was 
born I am he, i. e., the Christ, in the destination 
and appointment of God:" which also was say- 
ing nothing peculiar of Christ ; since the exist- 
ence and the part which every one of his hearers 
was to act, were as much in the destination and 
appointment of God as his own. Both these 
absurdities are well exposed by Bishop Pearson: — 

"The first interpretation makes our Saviour 
thus to speak : — Do ye so much wonder how I 
should have seen Abraham, who am not yet fifty 
years old? Do ye imagine so great a contradic- 
tion in this ? I tell you, and be ye most assured 
that what I speak unto you at this time is most 
certainly and infallibly true, and most worthy of 
your observation, which moves me not to deliver 
it without this solemn asseveration, [Verily, 
verily, I say unto you,) before Abraham shall per- 
fectly become that which was signified in his 
name, the father of many nations, before the Gen- 
tiles shall come in, 1 am. Nor be ye troubled at 
this answer, or think in this I magnify myself; 
for what I speak is as true of you yourselves as 
it is of me : before Abram be thus made Abra- 
ham, ye are. Doubt ye not, therefore, as ye did, 
nor ever make that question again whether I 
have seen Abraham." 

"The second explication makes a sense of an- 
other nature, but with the same impertinency : — 
Do ye continue still to question, and with so much 
admiration do ye look upon my age and ask, 
Hast thou seen Abraham ? I confess it is more 
than eighteen hundred years since that patriarch 
died, and less than forty since I was born at 
Bethlehem; but look not on this computation, 
for before Abraham was born I was. But mis- 
take me not : I mean that I was in the foreknow- 
ledge and decree of God. Nor do I magnify my- 
self in this, for ye also were so. How either of 
these answers should give any reasonable satis- 



[PART II. 

faction to the question, or the least occasion of 
the Jews' exasperation, is not to be understood. 
And that our Saviour should speak of any such 
impertinences as these interpretations bring 
forth, is not by a Christian to be conceived. 
"Wherefore, as the plain and most obvious sense 
is a proper and full answer to the question, and 
most likely to exasperate the unbelieving Jews : 
as those strained explications render the words 
of Christ not only impertinent to the occasion, 
but vain and useless to the hearers of them : as 
our Saviour gave this answer in words of another 
language, most probably incapable of any such 
interpretations : we must adhere unto that literal 
sense already delivered, by which it appeareth 
Christ had a being, as before John, so also before 
Abraham, and consequently by that he did exist 
two thousand years before he was born, or con- 
ceived by the virgin." — Exposition of the Creed. 

The observations of Whitaker on this decisive 
passage, are in his usual energetic manner: — 

"'Your father Abraham,' says our Saviour to 
the Jews, 'rejoiced to see my day; and he saw 
it, and was glad.' Our Saviour thus proposes 
himself to his countrymen as their Messiah — 
that grand object of hope and desire to their 
fathers, and particularly to this first father of 
the faithful, Abraham. But his countrymen, not 
acknowledging his claim to the character of 
Messiah, and therefore not allowing his super- 
natural priority of existence to Abraham, chose 
to consider his words in a signification merely 
human. 'Then said the Jews unto him, Thou 
art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra- 
ham ?' But what does our Saviour reply to this 
low and gross comment upon his intimation? 
Does he retract it, by warping his language to 
their poor perverseness, and so waiving his pre- 
tensions to the assumed dignity ? No ! to have 
so acted, would have been derogatory to his 
dignity, and injurious to their interests. He 
actually repeats his claim to the character. He 
actually enforces his pretensions to a supernatural 
priority of existence. He even heightens both. 
He mounts up far beyond Abraham. He ascends 
beyond all the orders of creation. And he places 
himself with God at the head of the universe. 
He thus arrogates to himself all that high pitch 
of dignity which the Jews expected their 
Messiah to assume. This he does too in the 
most energetic manner that his simplicity of 
language, so natural to inherent greatness, would 
possibly admit. He also introduces what he says 
with much solemnity in the form, and with more 
in the repetition. 'Verily, verily, I say unto 
you,' he cries, 'before Abraham was, I am.' 
He says not of himself, as he says of Abraham, 
'Before he was, I was.' This indeed would have 



CH. X.] 

been sufficient to affirm nis existence previous 
to Abraham. But it would not have been suffi- 
cient to declare what he now meant to assert, 
his full claim to the majesty of the Messiah. He 
therefore drops all forms of language that could 
be accommodated to the mere creatures of God. 
He arrests one that was appropriate to the God- 
head itself. 'Before Abraham was,'' or, still 
more properly, 'Before Abraham was made,' he 
says, 'I am.' He thus gives himself the signature 
of uncreated and continual existence, in direct 
opposition to contingent and created. He says of 
himself, 

That an eternal now for ever lasts, 

with him. He attaches to himself that very 
stamp of eternity, which God appropriates to his 
Godhead in the Old Testament ; and from which 
an apostle afterward describes 'Jesus Christ' 
expressly to be ' the same yesterday, and to-day, 
and for ever.' Nor did the Jews pretend to mis- 
understand him now. They could not. They 
heard him directly and decisively vindicating 
the noblest rights of their Messiah, and the 
highest honors of their God, to himself. They 
considered him as a mere pretender to those. 
They therefore looked upon him as a blasphemous 
arrogator of these. l Then took they up stones, 
to cast at him' as a blasphemer : as what indeed 
he was in his pretensions to be God, if he had 
not been in reality their Messiah and their God 
in one. But he instantly proved himself to their 
very senses to be both, by exerting the ener- 
getic powers of his Godhead upon them. For 
he '■hid himself; and went out of the temple, 
going through the midst of them; and so passed 
by.'" 

The last passage which I shall quote, may 
properly, both from its dignity and explicitness, 
close the whole. John xvii. 5 : "And now, 
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with 
the glory which I had with thee before the world 
was." Whatever this glory was, it was possessed 
by Christ before the world was ; or, as he after- 
ward expresses it, "before the foundation of the 
world." That question is therefore not to be 
confounded with the main point which deter- 
mines the preexistence of our Lord ; for if ho 
was with the Father, and had a glory with him 
before the world was, and of which "he emptied 
himself" when he became man, then he had an 
existence, not only before his incarnation, but 
before the very "foundation of the world." The 
Socinian gloss is, "the glory which I had with 
thee, in thy immutable decree, before the world 
was; or which thou didst decree, before the 
18 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



273 



world was, to give me." But % efyov napa col, 
"which I had with thee," cannot bear any such 
sense. The occasion was too peculiar to admit 
of any mystical, forced, or parabolic modes of 
speech. It was in the hearing of his disciples, 
just before he went out into the garden, that 
these words were spoken; and, as it has been 
well observed, it is remarkable, that he introduces 
the mention of this glory when it was not 
necessary to complete the sense of any proposi- 
tion. And yet, as if on purpose to prevent the 
apostles, who heard his prayer, from supposing 
that he was asking that which he had not pos- 
sessed in any former period, he adds, "with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world 
was." So decisive is this passage, that, as Dr. 
Harwoocl says, "Were there no intimation in the 
whole New Testament of the preexistence of 
Christ, this single passage would irrefragably 
demonstrate and establish it. Our Saviour here, 
in a solemn act of devotion, declares to the 
Almighty that he had glory with him before the 
world was, and fervently supplicates that he 
would be graciously pleased to reinstate him in 
his former felicity. The language is plain and 
clear. Every word has great moment and em- 
phasis : — ' Glorify thou me with that glory which I 
enjoyed in thy presence before the world was.' Upon 
this single text I lay my finger. Here I posit 
my system. And if plain words be designedly 
employed to convey any determinate meaning, 
if the modes of human speech have any precision, 
I am convinced, that this plain declaration of our 
Lord, in an act of devotion, exhibits a great and 
important truth, which can never be subverted 
or invalidated by any accurate and satisfactory 
criticism." — Socinian Scheme. 

Whatever, therefore, the true nature of our 
Lord Jesus Christ may be, we have at least dis- 
covered from the plainest possible testimonies — 
testimonies which no criticism, and no unlicensed 
and paraphrastic comments have been able to 
shake or to obscure — that he had an existence 
previous to his incarnation, and previous to the 
very "foundation of the world." If then we find 
that the same titles and works which are ascribed 
to him in the New Testament are ascribed to a 
Divine person in the Old, who is yet represented 
as distinct from God the Father, and especially 
to one who was to come into the world to fulfil 
the very offices which our Lord has actually ful- 
filled, we shall have obtained another step in this 
inquiry, and shall have exhibited lofty proof, not 
only of the preexistence of Christ, but also of 
his Divinity. This will be the subjoct of the 
next chapter. 



274 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



CHAPTER XI. 

TRINITY. — JESUS CHRIST THE JEHOVAH OF THE 
OLD TESTAMENT. 

In reading the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
ment, it is impossible not to mark with serious 
attention the frequent visible appearances of 
God to the patriarchs and prophets ; and, what 
is still more singular, his visible residence in a 
cloud of glory, both among the Jews in the 
wilderness, and in their sacred tabernacle and 
temple. 

The fact of such appearances cannot be dis- 
puted: they are allowed by all; and, in order 
to point out the bearing of this fact upon the 
point at issue — the Divinity of Christ — it is 
necessary, 

1. To show that the person who made these 
appearances was truly a Divine person. 

The proofs of this are, that he bears the names 
of Jehovah, God, and other Divine appellations; 
and that he dwelt among the Israelites as the 
object of their supreme worship: the worship 
of a people, the first precept of whose law was, 
" Thou shalt have no other gods before me." 
The proofs are copious, but quotations shall not 
be needlessly multiplied. 

When the angel of the Lord found Hagar in 
the wilderness, "she called the name of Jeho- 
vah that spake to her, Thou, God, seest me." 
Jehovah appeared unto Abraham in the plains 
of Mamre. Abraham lifted up his eyes, and 
three men, three persons in human form, "stood 
by him." One of the three is called Jehovah. 
And Jehovah said, " Shall I hide from Abraham 
the thing that I do ?" Two of the three depart, 
but he to whom this high appellation is given 
remains — "but Abraham stood yet before Jeho- 
vah." This Jehovah is called by Abraham, in 
the conversation which followed, "the Judge of 
all the earth;" and the account of the solemn 
interview is thus closed by the historian : " The 
Lord (Jehovah) went his way as soon as he had 
left off communing with Abraham." Appear- 
ances of the same personage occur to Isaac and 
to Jacob, under the name of " the God of Abra- 
ham and of Isaac." After one of these mani- 
festations, Jacob says, "I have seen God face 
to face;" and at another, "Surely the Lord 
(Jehovah) is in this place." The same Jeho- 
vah was made visible to Moses, and gave him 
his commission, and God said, "I am that I 
am : thou shalt say to the children of Israel, I 
am hath sent me unto you." The same Jeho- 
vah went before the Israelites by day in a pillar 
of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire ; and 
by him the law was given, amidst terrible dis- 



[PART II. 



plays of power and majesty from Mount Sinai. 
"I am the Lord (Jehovah) thy God, which have 
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of 
the house of bondage : thou shalt have no other 
gods before me, etc. Did ever people hear the 
voice of God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, 
as thou hast heard, and live?" This same per- 
sonage commanded the Israelites to build him a 
sanctuary, that he might reside among them ; 
and when it was erected he took possession of 
it in a visible form, which was called " the glory 
of the Lord." There the Shechinah, the visi- 
ble token of the presence of Jehovah, rested 
above the ark; there he was consulted on all 
occasions, and there he received their worship 
from age to age. Sacrifices were offered: sin 
was confessed and pardoned by him; and the 
book of Psalms is a collection of the hymns 
which were sung to his honor in the tabernacle 
and temple services, where he is constantly cele- 
brated as Jehovah, the God of Israel: the "Je- 
hovah, God of their fathers ;" and the object of 
their own exclusive hope and trust: all the works 
of creation are in those sublime compositions 
ascribed to him ; and he is honored and adored 
as the governor of all nations, and the sole ruler 
among the children of men. In a word, to mark 
his Divinity in the strongest possible manner, 
all blessings, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, 
"light and defence, grace and glory," are sought 
at his hands. 

Thus the same glorious being, bearing the ap- 
pellation of Jehovah, is seen as the object of 
the worship and trust of ages, and that under a 
visible manifestation: displaying attributes, en- 
gaged in operations, and assuming dignities and 
honors, which unequivocally array him with the 
majesty of absolute Divinity. 

To this, the objections which have been made 
admit of a most satisfactory answer. 

The first is, that this personage is also called 
"the Angel of the Lord." This is true ; but if 
that Angel of the Lord is the same person as he 
who is called Jehovah, the same as he who gave 
the law in his own name, then it is clear that the 
term "Angel" does not indicate a created being, 
and is a designation, not of nature, but of office, 
which will be just now accounted for, and is not 
at all inconsistent with his true and proper 
Divinity. 

The collation of a few passages, or of the dif- 
ferent parts of the same passages of Scripture, | 
will show that Jehovah and "the Angel of the 
Lord," when used in this eminent sense, are the 
same person. Jacob says of Bethel, where he 
had exclaimed, "Surely, Jehovah is in this 
place:" The Angel of God appeared to me in a 
dream, saying, I am the God of Bethel. Upon 



CH. XI.] 

his death-bed he gives the names of God and 
Angel to this same person. " The God which 
fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel 
which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." 
So in Hosea, xii. 2, 5, it is said, "By his strength 
he had power with God, yea, he had power over 
the Angel and prevailed." "We found him in 
Bethel, and there he spake with us, even the 
Lord God of hosts, the Lord is his memorial." 
Here the same person has the names God, Angel, 
and Lord God of hosts. " The Angel of the Lord 
called unto Abraham out of heaven the second 
time, and said, by myself have I sworn, saith the 
Lord, (Jehovah,) for because thou hast done this 
thing, in blessing I will bless thee." The Angel 
of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire ; 
but this same Angel of the Lord "called to him 
out of the bush, and said, I am the God of thy 
fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob ; and Moses hid his face, 
for he was afraid to look upon God." To omit 
many other passages, St. Stephen, in alluding to 
this part of the history of Moses, in his speech 
before the council, says, "There appeared to 
Moses in the wilderness of Mount Sinai an 
Angel of the Lord in a flame of fire," showing 
that that phraseology was in use among the Jews 
in his day, and that this Angel and Jehovah 
were regarded as the same being ; for he adds, 
" Moses was in the Church in the wilderness 
with the Angel which spoke unto him in Mount 
Sinai." There is one part of the history of the 
Jews in the wilderness which so fully shows that 
they distinguished this Angel of Jehovah from all 
created angels, as to deserve particular attention. 
In Exodus xxiii. 20, God makes this promise to 
Moses and the Israelites : "Behold, I send an 
Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and 
to bring thee into the place which I have pre- 
pared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, pro- 
voke him not ; for he will not pardon your trans- 
gressions; for my name is in him." Of this 
Angel let it be observed, that he is here repre- 
sented as the guide and protector of the Israel- 
ites : to him they were to owe their conquests, 
and their settlement in the promised land, which 
are in other places often attributed to the imme- 
diate agency of God : that they are cautioned to 
"beware of him," to reverence and stand in 
dread of him : that the pardoning of transgres- 
sions belongs to him : finally, " that the name of 
God was in him." This name must be under- 
stood of God's own peculiar name, Jehovah, 
I am, which lie assumed as his distinctive appel- 
lation at his first appearing to Moses; and as 
tin- names of God arc indicative of his nature, 
he who had a right to bear the peculiar name of 
God must also have his essence. This view is 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



275 



put beyond all doubt by the fact that Moses and 
the Jews so understood the promise ; for after- 
ward, when their sins had provoked God to 
threaten not to go up with them himself, but to 
commit them to "an Angel who should drive out 
the Canaanite, etc.," the people mourned over 
this as a great calamity, and Moses betook him- 
self to special intercession, and rested not until 
he obtained the repeal of the threat and the re- 
newed promise, "my presence shall go with thee, 
and I will give thee rest." Nothing, therefore, 
can be more clear than that Moses and the Is- 
raelites considered the promise of the Angel, in 
whom was "the name of God," as a promise 
that God himself would go with them. With 
this uncreated Angel, this presence of the Lord, 
they were satisfied, but not with "an angel" 
indefinitely; with an angel, not so by office only, 
as was the appearing Angel of the Old Testa- 
ment, but who was by nature of that order of 
beings usually so called, and therefore a created 
being. At the news of God's determination not 
to go up with them, Moses hastens to the taber- 
nacle to make his intercessions, and refuses an 
inferior conductor. "If thy presence go not 
with me, carry us not up hence." x 

That the Angel of Jehovah is constantly re- 
presented as Jehovah himself, and therefore as 
a Divine person, is so manifest, that the means 
resorted to to evade the force of the argument 
which so immediately flashes from it, acknow- 
ledge the fact. Those who deny the Divinity of 
our Lord, however, endeavor to elude the conse- 
quence according to their respective creeds. 
The Arians, who think the appearing angel to 
have been Christ, but who yet deny him to be 
Jehovah himself, assume that this glorious but 
created being personated the Deity, and, as his 
ambassador and representative, spoke by his 



1 From this remarkable passage it appears to me very 
clear that the Messenger or Angel of God, whom he here 
promises to be the leader of his people, is not a creature, 
much less Moses or Joshua, but an uncreated Angel. For, 
1. the clause He will not pardon your sins is not applicable 
to any created being, whether angel or man. 2. The nex. 
words, My name is in him, cannot bo explained to signify, 
he shall act in my name, that is, under my command, or by 
authority received from me, for in that case another word, 
he will act, or he toill speak, or (lie like, would have been 
added. 3. The same conclusion is established by a com- 
parison of this passage with chapter xxxii. 34, (and xxxiii. 
2,) where God expresses his indignation against the Israel- 
ites for their idolatry, b.v declaring that not himself, but 
an angel should be henceforth their guide; but this, the 
people and Moses most earnestly deprecate, [as a calamity 
and ajudgment, whereas the present Instance is a promise 
of favor and mercy, and is so acknowledged in Isaiah l\ii. 
8.] "That angel, therefore, is perfectly different from him 
Who is spoken of in this passage before us. who i* the same 

that appeared to Moses, chapter tii. 2, and there likewise 
both speaks and acts as Cod himself."— Vathii rcntatcuchus. 



276 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



[PART n. 



authority, and took his name. Thus a modern 
Arian observes, " The Angel takes the name of 
Jehovah because it is a common maxim, loquitur 
legatus sermone mittentis eum, as an ambassador 
in the name of his king, or the fecialis "when he 
denounced war in the name of the Roman peo- 
ple ; and what is done by the Angel is said to be 
done by God, according to another maxim, qui 
facit per alium, facit per se." (Tayxor, Ben Jtlor- 
decai.) The answer to this is, that though am- 
bassadors speak in the name of their masters, 
they do not apply the names and titles of their 
masters to themselves: 1 that the unquestionably 
created angels, mentioned in Scripture as ap- 
pearing to men, declare that they were sent by 
God, and never personate him : that the prophets 
uniformly declare their commission to be from 
God : that God himself declares, "Jehovah is my 
name, and my glory will I not give to another ;" 
and yet that the appearing Angel calls himself, 
as we have seen, by this incommunicable name 
in almost innumerable instances, and that though 
the object of the Mosaic dispensation was to 
preserve men from idolatry, yet this Angel 
claims and receives the exclusive worship both of 
the patriarchs to whom he occasionally appeared, 
and the Jews among whom he visibly resided for 
ages. It is therefore a proposition too mon- 
strous to be for a moment sustained, that a 
created being of any kind should thus allure 
men into idolatry by acting the Deity, assuming 
his name, and attributing to himself God's pecu- 
liar and incommunicable perfections and honor. 2 
The Arian hypothesis on this subject is well 
answered by even a Socinian writer. "The 
whole transaction on Mount Sinai shows that 
Jehovah was present and acted, and not another 
for him. It is the God that had delivered them 
out of Egypt with whom they were to enter into 
covenant as their God, and who thereupon ac- 
cepted them as his people, who was the author 
of their religion and laws, and who himself de- 
livered to them those ten commands, the most 
sacred pare. Thore is nothing to lead us to 
inline that the person, who was their God, did 
not speak in his own name ; not the least inti- 
mation that here was another representing 
him." — Lindset's Apology. 

The author of the "Essay on Spirit" attempts 

l -An earthly ambassador indeed represents the person 
of his prince, is supposed to be clothed with his authority, 
and speaks and acts in his name. But who ever heard of j 
an ambassador assuming the very name of his sovereign, j 
or being honored with it by others? Would one in this j 
character be permitted to say, I George, I Louis, I Frederic? 
As the idea is ridiculous, the action would justly be ac- 
counted high treason." — Jameson's Vindication. 

2 histrioniam exercuisse, in qua Dei nomen assu- 

mat, et omnia quae Dei sunt, sibi attribuat. — Bishop Bull. 



I to meet this by alleging that "the Hebrews were 

. far from being explicit and accurat-e in their 

I style, and that it was customary for prophets 

j and angels to speak in the name and character 

of God." The reply of Dr. Eandolph is able 

and decisive ; and as this is a point of great 

importance, its introduction will not appear 

j unnecessary. 

"Some, to evade these strong proofs of our 
: Lord's Divinity, have asserted that this was only 
| a created angel appearing in the name or person 
of the Father ; it being customary in Scripture 
for one person to sustain the character, and act 
and speak in the name of another. But these 
j assertions want proof. I find no instances of one 
person acting and speaking in the name of ano- 
! ther, without first declaring in whose name he 
acts and speaks. The instances usually alleged 
are nothing to the purpose. If we sometimes 
find an angel in the book of Revelation speaking 
| in the name of God, yet from the context it will 
j be easy to show that this angel was the great 
Angel, the Angel of the Covenant. Rut if there 
should be some instances, in the poetical or pro- 
, phetical parts of Scripture, of an abrupt change 
of persons, where the person speaking is not 
. particularly specified, this will by no means 
| come up to the case before us. Here is a person 
sustaining the name and character of the most 
: high God, from one end of the Bible to the other ; 
bearing his glorious and fearful name, the incom- 
: municable name Jehovah, expressive of his 
■ necessary existence ; sitting in the throne of 
j God ; dwelling and presiding in his temple ; 
delivering laws in his name ; giving out oracles ; 
hearing prayers ; forgiving sins. And yet these 
writers would persuade us that this was only a 
tutelary angel ; that a creature was the God of 
Israel, and that to this creature all their service 
and worship was directed ; that the great God, 
[ 'whose name is Jealous,' was pleased to give his 
glory, his worship, his throne, to a creature. 
"What is this but to make the law of God himself 
introductory of the same idolatry that was prac- 
ticed by all the nations of the heathen? But we 
are told that bold figures of speech are common 
in the Hebrew language, which is not to be tied 
down in its interpretation to the severer rules of 
modern criticism. We may be assured that those 
opinions are indefensible which cannot be sup- 
ported without charging the word of God with 
want of propriety or perspicuity. Such pre- 
tences might be borne with, if the question were 
about a phrase or two in the poetical or prophet- 
ical parts of Scripture. But this, if it be a 
figure, is a figure which runs through the whole 
Scripture. And a bold interpreter must he be, 
who supposes that such figures are perpetually 



CH. XI.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY, 



27 



and uniformly made use of, in a point of such 
importance, without any meaning at all. This is 
to confound the use of language, to make the 
Holy Scripture a mysterious unintelligible hook, 
sufficient to prove nothing, or rather to prove 
any thing which a wild imagination shall sug- 
gest." — Randolph's Vindication of the Doctrine 
of the Trinity. 

If the Arian account of the Angel of Jehovah 
be untenable, the Socinian notion will be found 
equally unsupported, and indeed ridiculous. 
Dr. Priestley assumes the marvellous doctrine 
of ''occasional personality," and thinks that "in 
some cases, angels were nothing more than tem- 
porary appearances, and no permanent beings: 
the mere organs of the Deity, assumed for the 
purpose of making himself known." He speaks, 
therefore, of "a power occasionally emitted, and 
then taken back again into its source;" of this 
power being vested with a temporary personality, 
and thinks this possible ! Little cause had the 
Doctor and his adherents to talk of the mystery 
and absurdity of the doctrine of three persons 
in one Godhead, who can make a person out of a 
power emitted and then drawn back again to its 
source ; a temporary person, without individual 
subsistence ! The wildness of this fiction is its 
own refutation ; but that the Angel of Jehovah 
was not this temporary, occasional person, pro- 
duced or "emitted" for the occasion of these 
appearances, is made certain by Abraham's 
"walking before this Angel of the Lord;" that is, 
ordering his life and conversation in his sight all 
the days of his life : by Jacob calling him the 
Angel of the Lord who had "fed him all his life 
long;" and by this also, that the same person 
who was called by himself and by the Jews "the 
God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," was 
the God of the chosen people in all their genera- 
tions. Mr. Lindsey says "that the outward token 
of the presence of God is what is generally 
meant by the Angel of God, when not particu- 
larly specified and appropriated otherwise ; that 
which manifested his appearance, whatever it 
was;" and this opinion commonly obtains among 
the Socinians. " The Angel of the Lord was the 
visible symbol of the Divine presence." (Bel- 
sham.) This notion, however, involves a whole 
train of absurdities. The term, the "Angel of 
Jehovah," is not at all accounted for by a visible 
symbol of clouds, light, fire, etc., unless that 
symbol be considered as distinct from Jehovah. 
Wo have then the name Jehovah given to a 
cloud, a light, a fire, etc. : the fire is the Angel 
of the Lord, and yet the Angel of the Lord calls 
to Moses out of the fire. This visible symbol says 
to Abraham, "By myself I have sworn," for 
these are said to be the words of the Angel of 



Jehovah ; and this Angel, the visible symbol, 
spake to Moses on Mount Sinai: such are the 
absurdities which flow from error ! Most clearly 
therefore is it determined, on the testimony of 
several scriptures, and by necessary induction 
from the circumstances attending the numerous 
appearances of the Angel of Jehovah in the Old 
Testament, that the person thus manifesting 
himself, and thus receiving supreme worship, 
was not a created angel, as the Arians would 
have it, nor a meteor, an atmospheric appearance, 
the worthy theory of modern Socinians; but 
that he was a Divine person. 

2. It will be necessary to show that this Divine 
person was not God the Father. 

The following argument has been adopted in 
proof of this: "No man hath seen God at any 
time. Ye have neither heard his voice at any 
time, nor seen his shape. Not that any man hath 
seen the Father. It is however said in the Old 
Testament, that God frequently appeared under 
the patriarchal and Levitical dispensations, and 
therefore we must conclude that the God who 
appeared was God the Son." 

Plausible as this argument is, it cannot be 
depended upon ; for that the Father never mani- 
fested himself to men, as distinct from the Son, 
is contradicted by two express testimonies. We 
have seen that the Angel, in whom was the name 
of God, promised as the conductor of the Israel- 
ites through the wilderness, was a Divine person. 
But he who promised to " send him," must be a 
different person from the Angel sent, and that per- 
son could be no other than the Father. "Behold, 
I send an angel before thee," etc. On this occa- 
sion, therefore, Moses heard the voice of the 
Father. Again, at the baptism of Jesus the 
voice of the Father was heard, declaring, "This 
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
The above passages must be therefore interpreted 
to accord with these facts. They express the 
pure spirituality and invisibility of God, and can 
no more be argued against a sensible manifesta- 
tion of God by audible sounds and appearances, 
than the declaration to Moses, "There shall no 
man see me, and live." There was an important 
sense in which Moses neither did nor could see 
God ; and yet it is equally true that he both saw 
him and heard him. He saw the "backward 
parts," but not the "face of God." 1 

The manifestation of the Father was, however, 
very rare ; as appears from by far the greater 
part of these Divine appearances being expressly 
called appearances of the Angel of the Lord. Tho 
Jehovah who appeared to Abram in the ease of 
Sodom, was an Angel. The Johovah who appeared 



1 Iinperscrutabilem Doi 
Vatablh. 



esaentiam ct majestatem.— 



278 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



to Hagar, is said also to be "the Angel of the 
Lord" It was "the Angel of Jehovah from hea- 
ven" who sware by himself to Abraham, "In 
blessing I will bless thee." Jacob calls the 
"God of Bethel," that is, the God who appeared 
to him there, and to whom he yowed his vows, 
"the Angel of God." In blessing Joseph, he calls 
the God "in whose presence my fathers, Abra- 
ham and Isaac, have walked," the Angel who had 
redeemed him from all evil. "I am that I am," 
when he spoke to Moses out of the bush, is 
termed the Angel of Jehovah. The God who spake 
these words and said, "Thou shalthaveno other 
gods before me," is called the Angel who spake 
to Moses in the Mount Sinai. The Being who 
dwelt in a fiery cloud, the visible token of the 
presence of God, and took up his residence over 
the ark, in the holiest place, and there received 
the constant worship of the Jews, is called the 
Angel of the Lord; and so in many other in- 
stances. 

Nor is there any reason for stretching the point 
to exclude, in all cases, the visible or audible 
agency of the Father from the Old Testament : 
no advantage in the least is gained by it ; and it 
cannot be maintained without sanctioning by 
example the conduct of the opposers of truth, 
in giving forced and unnatural expositions to 
several passages of Scripture. This ought to be 
avoided, and a consistency of fair, honest inter- 
pretation be maintained throughout. It is amply 
sufficient for the important argument with which 
we " are now concerned, to prove, not that the 
Father was never manifested in his own person, 
but that the Angel of the Lord, whose appear- 
ances are so often recorded, is not the Father. 
This is clear from his appellation angel, with 
respect to which there can be but two interpre- 
tations. It is either a name descriptive of nature 
or of office. In the first view, it is generally 
employed in the Sacred Scriptures to designate 
one of an order of intelligences superior to man, 
and often employed in the service of man as the 
ministers of God, but still beings finite and 
created. We have, however, already proved that 
the Angel of the Lord is not a creature, and he 
is not therefore called an angel with reference to 
his nature. The term must then be considered 
as a term of office. He is called the Angel of the 
Lord, because he was the messenger of the Lord ; 
because he was sent to execute his will, and to 
be his visible image and representative. His 
office, therefore, under this appellation was 
ministerial ; but ministration is never attributed 
to the Father. He who was sent must be a dis- 
tinct person from him by whom he was sent ; the 
messenger from him whose message he brought, 
and whose will he performed. The Angel of 



[PART II. 

Jehovah is therefore a different person from the 
Jehovah whose messenger he was ; and yet the 
Angel himself is Jehovah, and, as we have 
proved, truly Divine. Thus does the Old Testa- 
ment most clearly reveal to us, in the case of 
Jehovah and the Angelof Jehovah, two Divine 
persons, while it still maintains its great funda- 
mental principle, that there is but one God. 

3. The third step in this argument is, that the 
Divine person, called so often the Angel of Jeho- 
vah in the Old Testament, was the promised and 
future Christ, and consequently Jesus, the Lord 
and Saviour of the Christian Church. 

We have seen that it was the Angel of Jeho- 
vah who gave the law to the Israelites, and that 
in his own name, though still an angel, a messen- 
ger in the transaction ; being at once servant and 
Lord, angel and Jehovah — circumstances which 
can only be explained on the hypothesis of his 
Divinity, and for which neither Arianism nor 
Socinianism can give any solution. He there- 
fore was the person who made the covenant, 
usually called the Mosaic, with the children of 
Israel. The Prophet Jeremiah, however, ex- 
pressly says, that the new covenant with Israel 
was to be made by the same person who had made 
the old. "Behold, the days come, saith the 
Lord, that / will make a new covenant with the 
house of Israel and with the house of Judah : 
not according to the covenant that / made with 
their fathers in the day that I took them by the 
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." 
The Angel of Jehovah, who led the Israelites out 



of Egypt and gave them their law, is here plainly 
i introduced as the author of the new covenant. 
If, then, as we learn from the Apostle Paul, this 
new covenant predicted by Jeremiah is the Chris- 
tian dispensation, and Christ be its author ; the 
Christ of the New Testament, and the Angel of 
Jehovah of the Old, are the same person. 

Equally striking is the celebrated prediction 
in Malachi, the last of the prophets. "Behold, 
I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare 
my way before me ; and the Lord whom ye seek 
shall suddenly come to his temple, even the 
Messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in : 
behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." 

The characters under which the person who is 
the subject of this prophecy is described, are, 
the Lord, a sovereign Ruler, 1 the owner of the 
temple, and therefore a Divine prince or gov- 
ernor — he "shall come to his temple." "The 
temple," says Bishop Horsley, "in the writings 
of a Jewish prophet, cannot be otherwise under- 

1 The same word is often applied to magistrates, and 
even fathers: but J. EL Michaelis says that when it occurs 
as in this place with the prefix, it is appropriated only to 
God. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. XI.] 

stood, according to the literal meaning, than of 
the temple at Jerusalem. Of this temple, there- 
fore, the person to come is here expressly called 
the Lord. The lord of any temple, in the lan- 
guage of all writers, and in the natural meaning 
of the phrase, is the divinity to whose worship 
it is consecrated. To no other divinity the 
temple of Jerusalem was consecrated than the 
true and everlasting God, the Lord Jehovah, the 
Maker of heaven and earth. Here, then, we 
have the express testimony of Malachi that the 
Christ, the Deliverer, whose coming he an- 
nounces, was no other than the Jehovah of the 
Old Testament. Jehovah had delivered the 
Israelites from the Egyptian bondage ; and the 
same Jehovah was to come in person to his tem- 
ple, to effect the greater and more general 
deliverance of which the former was but an 
imperfect type." 

He bears also the same title, angel or messen- 
ger, as he whose appearances in the Old Testa- 
ment have been enumerated. 

" The Messenger of the Covenant, therefore, is 
Jehovah's messenger: if his messenger, his ser- 
vant ; for a message is a service : it implies a 
person sending, and a person sent. In the person 
who sendeth there must be authority to send — 
submission to that authority in the person sent. 
The Messenger, therefore, of the Covenant, is 
the servant of the Lord Jehovah ; but the same 
person who is the Messenger is the Lord Jeho- 
vah himself, not the same person with the sender, 
but bearing the same name; because united in 
that mysterious nature and undivided substance 
which the name imports. The same person, 
therefore, is servant and Lord ; and, by uniting 
these characters in the same person, what does 
the prophet but describe that great mystery of 
the gospel, the union of the nature which go- 
verns, and the nature which serves — the union of 
the Divine and human nature in the person of 
the Christ?" — Horsley's Sermons. 

Now, this prophecy is expressly applied to 
Christ by St. Mark. " The beginning of the 
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is 
written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy 
face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." 
It follows from this that Jesus is the Lord, the 
Lord of the temple, the Messenger of the Cove- 
nant mentioned in the prophecy; and bearing 
these exact characters of the appearing Angel 
Jehovah of the Old Testament, who was the 
King of the Jews ; whose temple was his, be- 
cause ho resided in it, and so was callod "the 
house of the Lord;" and who was "the Messen- 
ger" of their Covenant, the identity of the per- 
sons cannot bo mistaken. One coincidence is 
singularly striking. It has been proved that the 



279 



Angel Jehovah had his residence in the Jewish 
tabernacle and temple, and that he took posses- 
sion of or came suddenly to both, at their dedica- 
tion, and filled them with his glory. On one 
occasion, Jesus himself, though in his state of 
humiliation, comes in public procession to the 
temple at Jerusalem, and calls it "his own," 
thus at once declaring that he was the ancient 
and rightful Lord of the temple, and appropri- 
ating to himself this eminent prophecy. Bishop 
Horsley has introduced this circumstance in his 
usual striking and convincing manner : — 

"A third time Jesus came still more remarka- 
bly as the Lord to his temple, when he came up 
from Galilee to celebrate the last passover, and 
made that public entry at Jerusalem which is 
described by all the evangelists. It will be ne- 
cessary to enlarge upon the particulars of this 
interesting story; for the right understanding 
of our Saviour's conduct upon this occasion de- 
pends so much upon seeing certain leading cir- 
cumstances in a proper light — upon a recollection 
of ancient prophecies, and an attention to the 
customs of the Jewish people — that I am apt to 
suspect few now-a-days discern in this extraor- 
dinary transaction what was clearly seen in it at 
the time by our Lord's disciples, and in some 
measure understood by his enemies. I shall 
present you with an orderly detail of the story, 
and comment upon the particulars as they arise ; 
and I doubt not that by God's assistance I 
shall teach you to perceive in this public entry 
of Jesus of Nazareth, (if you have not perceived 
it before,) a conspicuous advent of the great Je- 
hovah to his temple. Jesus, on his last journey 
from Galilee to Jerusalem, stops at the foot of 
Mount Olivet, and sends two of his disciples to a 
neighboring village to provide an ass's colt to 
convey him from that place to the city, distant 
not more than half a mile. The colt is brought, 
and Jesus is seated upon it. This first circum- 
stance must be well considered : it is the key to 
the whole mystery of the story. What could be 
his meaning in choosing this singular convey- 
ance ? It could not be that the fatigue of the 
short journey which remained was likely to be 
too much for him afoot ; and that no better ani- 
mal was to be procured. Nor was the ass in 
these days (though it had been in earlier ages an 
animal in high esteem in the east) used for tra- 
velling or for state by persons of the first condi- 
tion — that this conveyance should be chosen for 
the grandeur or propriety of the appearance. 
Strange as it may seem, the coming to Jerusalem 
upon an ass's colt was ono of tho prophetical 
characters of the Messiah; and the great singu- 
larity of it had perhaps been the reason that this 
character had been moro generally attended to 



280 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



than any other : so that there was no Jew who 
was not apprised that the Messiah was to come 
to the holy city in that manner. ' Rej oice greatly, 
daughter of Zion ! shout, daughter of Jeru- 
salem!' saith Zechariah: 'Behold, thy King 
cometh unto thee ! He is just, and having salva- 
tion ; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even a colt, 
the foal of an ass !' And this prophecy the Jews 
never understood of any other person than the 
Messiah. Jesus, therefore, by seating himself 
upon the ass's colt in order to go to Jerusalem, 
without any possible inducement either of grand- 
eur or convenience, openly declared himself to 
be that King who was to come, and at whose 
coming in that manner Zion was to rejoice. And 
so the disciples, if we may judge from what im- 
mediately followed, understood this proceeding; 
for no sooner did they see their Master seated on 
the colt than they broke out into transports of 
the highest joy, as if in this great sight they had 
the full contentment of their utmost wishes : con- 
ceiving, as it should seem, the sanguine hope 
that the kingdom was this instant to be restored 
to Israel. They strewed the way which Jesus 
was to pass with the green branches of the trees 
which grew beside it : a mark of honor in the 
east, never paid but to the greatest emperors on 
occasions of the highest pomp. They proclaimed 
him the long-expected heir of David's throne — 
the Blessed One coming in the name of the Lord ; 
that is, in the language of Malachi, the Messen- 
ger of the Covenant; and they rent the skies 
with the exulting exclamation of 'Hosanna in 
the highest!' On their way to Jerusalem they 
are met by a great multitude from the city, whom 
the tidings had no sooner reached than they ran 
out in eager joy to join his triumph. When they 
reached Jerusalem, 'the whole city,' says the 
blessed evangelist, 'was moved.' Here recollect, 
that it was now the season of the passover. The 
passover was the highest festival of the Jewish 
nation, the anniversary of that memorable night 
when Jehovah led his armies out of Egypt with 
a high hand and an extended arm — 'a night 
much to be remembered to the Lord of the child- 
ren of Israel in their generations;' and much 
indeed it was remembered. The devout Jews 
flocked at this season to Jerusalem, not only 
from every corner of Judea, but from the re- 
motest countries whither God had scattered 
them; and the numbers of the strangers that 
were annually collected in Jerusalem during this 
festival are beyond imagination. These strangers, 
who, living at a distance, knew little of what 
had been passing in Judea since their last visit, 
were they who were moved (as well they might 
be) with wonder and astonishment, when Jesus, so 
humble in his equipage, so honored in his numer- 



ous attendants, appeared within the city gates ; 
and every one asks his neighbor, ' Who is this V 
It was replied by some of the natives of Judea — 
but, as I conceive, by none of the disciples, for 
any of them at this time would have given 
another answer — it was replied, ' This is the Naz- 
arene, the great prophet from Galilee.' Through 
the throng of these astonished spectators the 
procession passed by the public streets of Jeru- 
salem to the temple, where immediately the sacred 
porticoes resound with the continued hosannas 
of the multitudes. The chief priests and scribes 
are astonished and alarmed : they request Jesus 
himself to silence his followers. Jesus, in the 
early part of his ministry, had always been 
cautious of any public display of personal con- 
sequence ; lest the malice of his enemies should 
be too soon provoked, or the unadvised zeal of 
his friends should raise civil commotions. But 
now that his work on earth was finished in all 
but the last painful part of it—now that he had 
firmly laid the foundations of God's kingdom in 
the hearts of his disciples — now that the apostles 
were prepared and instructed for their office — 
now that the days of vengeance on the Jewish 
nation were at hand, and it mattered not how 
soon they should incur the displeasure of the 
Romans, their masters — Jesus lays aside a re- 
serve which could be no longer useful, and, 
instead of checking the zeal of his followers, he 
gives a new alarm to the chief priests and scribes, 
by a direct and firm assertion of his right to the 
honors that were so largely shown to him. ' If 
these,' says he, 'were silent, the stones of this 
building would be endued with a voice to pro- 
claim my titles ;' and then, as on a former occa- 
sion, he drove out the traders ; but with a higher 
tone of authority, calling it his own house, and 
saying, ' My house is the house of prayer, but 
ye have made it a den of thieves.' You have 
now the story, in all its circumstances, faithfully 
collected from the four (evangelists: nothing 
exaggerated, but set in order, and perhaps some- 
what illustrated by an application of old prophe- 
cies, and a recollection of Jewish customs. Judge 
for yourselves whether this was not an advent 
of the Lord Jehovah taking personal possession 
of his temple." — Horsley. 

But it is not only in these passages that the 
name Jehovah, the appellation of the appearing 
Angel of the Old Testament, and other titles of 
Divinity, are given to Messiah ; and if Jesus be 
Messiah, then are they his titles, and as truly 
mark his Divinity. 

"The voice of him that crieth in the wilder- 
ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, (Jehovah,) 
make straight in the desert a highway for our 
God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every 



CH. XI.] 

mountain shall be made low; and the crooked 
shall be made straight, and the rough places 
plain, and the glory of the Lord (Jehovah) shall 
be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together." 
This being spoken of him of whom John the 
Baptist was to be the forerunner ; and the appli- 
cation having been afterward expressly made 
by the Baptist to our Lord, it is evident that he 
is the person " to whom the prophet attributes 
the incommunicable name of Jehovah, and styles 
him ' our God.' " — Wogan. 

"Now all this was done that it might be ful- 
filled which was spoken of the Lord by the 
prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, 
and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call 
his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is 
God with us." Here another prediction of Isaiah 
is expressly applied to Jesus. "Thou shalt 
bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 
He shall be great, and the Lord God shall give 
unto him the throne of his father David, and 
he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; 
and of his kingdom there shall be no end." 
These are the words of the angel to Mary, 
and obviously apply to our Lord the words of 
Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son 
is given, and the government shall be upon his 
shoulder ; and his name shall be called Wonder- 
ful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting 
Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase 
of his government and peace there shall be no 
end, upon the throne of David to order and 
establish it for ever." It is unnecessary at 
present to quote more of those numerous passages 
which speak of the future Messiah under Divine 
titles, and which are applied to Jesus as that 
Messiah actually manifested. They do not in so 
many words connect the Angel of Jehovah with 
Jesus as the same person ; but, taken with the 
passages above adduced, they present evidence 
of a very weighty character in favor of that 
position. A plurality of persons in the one God- 
head is mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures : this 
plurality is restricted to three: one of them 
appears as the " acting God" of the patriarchal 
and Mosaic age : the prophets speak of a Divine 
person to come as the Messiah, bearing precisely 
the same titles ; no one supposes this to be the 
Holy Ghost ; it cannot be the Father, seeing that 
Messiah is God's servant and God's messenger ; 
and the only conclusion is, that the Messiah pre- 
dicted is ho who is known under the titles, Angel, 
Son of God, Word of God, in the Old Testament; 
and if Jesus be that Messiah, he is that Son, 
that Word, that Servant, that Messenger; and 
bearing the same Divine characters as the 
Angel of Jehovah, is that Angel himself, and is 
entitled in the Christian Church to all the 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



281 



homage and worship which was paid to him in 
the Jewish. 

There are, however, a few passages which in 
a still more distinct manner than any which have 
been introduced, except that from the prophecy 
of Jeremiah, identify Jesus Christ with the 
Angel of Jehovah in the patriarchal and Leviti- 
cal dispensations ; and a brief consideration of 
them will leave this important point completely 
established. 

Let it then be recollected that he who dwelt in 
the Jewish tabernacle between the cherubim was 
the Angel Jehovah. In Psalm lxviii., which was 
written on the removal of the ark to Mount Zion, 
he is expressly addressed: "This is the hill 
which God desireth to dwell in;" and again, 
"They have seen thy goings, God, my King, 
in the sanctuary." But the Apostle Paul, Eph. 
iv. 8, applies this psalm to Christ, and considers 
this very ascent of the Angel of Jehovah to Mount 
Zion as a prophetic type of the ascent of Jesus 
to the celestial Zion. "Wherefore he saith, when 
he ascended on high, he led captivity captive," 
etc. The conclusion, therefore, is, that the 
Angel Jehovah who is addressed in the Psalm, 
and Christ, are the same person. This is marked 
with equal strength in verse 29. The Psalm, let it 
be observed, is determined by apostolical author- 
ity to be a prophecy of Christ, as indeed its 
terms intimate ; and with reference to the future 
conquests of Messiah, the prophet exclaims, 
"Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings 
bring presents unto thee." The future Christ is 
spoken of as one having then a temple at Jeru- 
salem. 

It was the glory of the Angel Jehovah, the 
resident God of the temple, which Isaiah saw in 
the vision recorded in the sixth chapter of his 
prophecy before adduced; but the Evangelist 
John expressly declares that on that occasion the 
prophet saw the glory of Christ, and spake of him. 
Christ, therefore, was the Lord of hosts whose 
glory filled the temple. 

St. -Peter calls the Spirit of Jehovah, by which 
the prophets "prophesied of the grace that 
should come, the Spirit of Christ." He also 
informs us that "Christ was put to death in the 
flesh, but quickened by tho Spirit, by which also 
he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, 
which sometime were disobedient, when once the 
long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, 
while the ark was a preparing." Now. whatever 
may be the full meaning of this difficult passage, 
Christ is clearly represented as preaching by his 
Spirit in tho days of Noah, that is, inspiring Noah 
to preach. Let this bo collated with the declara- 
tion of Johovah before tho flood, "My Spirit shall 
not always strive with man, for that ho also id 



282 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



flesh, yet Ms days shall be a hundred and twenty 
years," during which period of delay and long- 
suffering Noah was made by him, from whom 
alone inspiration can come, a preacher of right- 
eousness ; and it is clear that Christ, and the 
appearing Jehoyah of the antediluvian world, are 
supposed by St. Peter to have been the same 
person. In the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews, 
Moses is said to have esteemed the reproach of 
Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt ; 
a passage of easy interpretation, when it is 
admitted that the Jehovah of the Israelites, whose 
name and worship Moses professed, and Christ, 
were the same person. For this worship he was 
reproached by the Egyptians, who preferred 
their own idolatry, and treated, as all apostates 
do, the true religion, the pure worship of former 
ages, from which they had departed, with con- 
tempt. To be reproached for the sake of Jeho- 
vah, and to be reproached for Christ, were 
convertible phrases with the apostle, because he 
considered Jehovah and Christ to be the same 
person. 

" In St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
we read, < Neither let us tempt Christ, as some 
of them (that is, the Jews in the wilderness) also 
tempted, and were destroyed by serpents,' x. 9. 
The pronoun him, avrbv, must be understood 
after 'tempted,' and it is found in some MSS., 
though not sufficiently numerous to warrant its 
insertion in the text. It is, however, necessarily 
implied, and refers to Christ, just before men- 
tioned. The Jews in the wilderness here are 
said to have tempted some person ; and to under- 
stand by that person any other than Christ, who 
is just before named, is against all grammar, 
which never allows without absolute necessity 
any other accusative to be understood by the verb 
than that of some person or thing before men- 
tioned in the same sentence. The conjunction ml, 
also, establishes this interpretation beyond doubt: 
1 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them 
also tempted' — tempted whom? The answer 
clearly is, as they also tempted Christ. If Christ, 
then, was the person whom the Israelites tempted 
in the wilderness, he unavoidably becomes the 
Jehovah of the Old Testament." l 

This is rendered the more striking when the 
passage to which the apostle refers is given at 
length. " Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, 
as ye tempted him in Massah." Now what could 
lead the apostle to substitute Christ in the place of 
the Lord your God? "Neither let us tempt 
Christ, as some of them also tempted" Christ, for 

1 Holden's Testimonies. See this text, so fatal to the 
Socinian scheme, triumphantly established against the 
liberty of their criticisms, in Dr. Magee's Postscript to 
Appendix, p. 211, etc. 



that is the accusative which must be supplied. 
Nothing, certainly, but that the idea was familiar 
to him that Christ, and the Angel Jehovah, who 
conducted and governed the Israelites, were the 
same person. 

Heb. xii. 25, 26 : " See that ye refuse not him 
that speaketh ; for if they escaped not who 
refused him that spake on earth, much more 
shall not we escape if we turn away from him 
that speaketh from heaven. Whose voice then 
shook the earth, but now he hath promised," etc. 
This passage, also, is decisive as a proof that 
the Angel of Jehovah, and our Lord, are the 
same person. '■'■Him that speaketh from heaven," 
the context determines to be Christ: "him that 
spake on earth," is probably Moses. The " voice" 
that then "shook the earth" was the voice of 
him that gave the law, at the sound of which the 
mountain trembled and shook. He who gave the 
law, we have already proved, from the authority 
of Scripture, to have been the Angel of Jehovah; 
and the apostle declares that the same person 
now speaks to us "from heaven," in the Gospel, 
and is, therefore, the Lord Christ. Dr. Mac 
Knight says, that it was not the Son's voice which 
shook the earth, because it was not the Son who 
gave the law. In this he is clearly contradicted 
by St. Stephen, and the whole Jewish History. 
The proto-martyr, in his defence, expressly says, 
that it was " the Angel" who spake with Moses 
in the mount ; and here the Apostle Paul declares 
that it was the voice of Christ which then shook 
the earth. Nothing can more certainly prove 
than this collation of Scriptures, that the Son 
gave the law, and that "the Angel" who spake 
to Moses, and Christ, are the same person. 

The above passage, in its necessary grammati- 
cal construction, so certainly marks out Christ 
as the person whose voice shook the earth at the 
giving of the law, that the Socinians, in their 
New Version of the Testament, have chosen to 
get rid of a testimony which no criticism could 
evade, by daringly and wilfully corrupting the 
text itself, and without any authority whatever: 
they read, instead of "See that ye refuse not 
him that speaketh," "See that ye refuse not God 
that speaketh:" thus introducing a new antece- 
dent. This instance of a wilful perversion of 
the very text of the word of God, has received 
its merited reprobation from those eminent 
critics who have exposed the dishonesties, the 
i ignorance, and the licentious criticisms, of what 
is called an "Improved Version" of the New 
Testament. 

These views are confirmed by the testimonies 
of the early fathers, to whom the opinions of 
the apostles, on this subject, (one not at all 
affected by the controversies of the day,) would 



CH. XI.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



283 



naturally descend. The opinions of the ancient 
Jews, which are also decidedly confirmatory, 
will be given in their proper place. 

Justin Martyr has delivered his sentiments 
very freely upon the Divine appearances. "Our 
Christ," he says, "conversed with Moses out of 
the bush, in the appearance of fire. And Moses 
received great strength from Christ, who spake 
to him in the appearance of fire." Again: — 
"The Jews are justly reproved, for imagining 
that the Father of all things spake to Moses, 
when indeed it was the Son of God, who is called 
the Angel and the Messenger of the Father. He 
formerly appeared in the form of fire, and with- 
out a human shape, to Moses and the other 
prophets ; but now — being made a man of the 
virgin," etc. 

Irenseus says, " The Scripture is full of the 
Son of God's appearing : sometimes to talk and 
eat with Abraham, at other times to instruct 
Noah about the measures of the ark : at another 
time to seek Adam: at another time to bring 
down judgment upon Sodom : then again, to 
direct Jacob in the way ; and again, to converse 
with Moses out of the bush." 

Tertullian says, "It was the Son who judged 
men from the beginning, destroying that lofty 
tower, and confounding their languages, punish- 
ing the whole world with a flood of waters, and 
raining fire and brimstone upon Sodom and 
Gomorrah, the Lord pouring it down from the 
Lord; for he always descended to hold converse 
with men, from Adam even to the patriarchs and 
prophets, in visions, in dreams, in mirrors, in 
dark sentences, always preparing his way from 
the beginning ; neither was it possible that the 
God who conversed with men upon earth could 
be any other than that Word which was to be 
made flesh." 

Clemens Alexandrinus says, "The Pedagogus 
appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, wrestled with 
him, and, lastly, manifested himself to Moses." 
Again : "Christ gave the world the law of nature, 
and the written law of Moses. Wherefore, the 
Lord deriving from one fountain both the first 
and second precepts which he gave, neither over- 
looked those who were before the law, so as to 
leave them without law, nor suffered those who 
minded not the philosophy of the barbarians to 
do as they pleased. He gave to the one precepts, 
to the other philosophy, and concluded them in 
unbelief till his coming, when whosoever believes 
not i'. • without excuse." 4 gi. 

Origen says, "M>x7^nguTC oe called Jehoviaded 
to the earth more that he was any thing more 
Esaias, to Moses, and no existence before his 
phots." Again: — "Thai in the Scriptures are 
sometimes become as avail ; as, Jerusalem is 



induced to believe, if we consider the appear- 
ances and speeches of angels, who in some texts 
have said, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the 
God of Isaac,' " etc. 

Theophilus of Antioch also declares, "that it 
was the Son of God who appeared to Adam im- 
mediately after the fall, who, assuming the per- 
son of the Father and the Lord of all, came in 
paradise under the person of God, and conversed 
with Adam." 
' The synod of Antioch: — "The Son" say they, 
"is sometimes called an Angel, and sometimes 
the Lord; sometimes God. For it is impious to 
imagine that the God of the universe is any- 
where called an angel. But the Messenger of 
the Father is the Son, who himself is Lord and 
God; for it is written, The Angel of the great 
council.'''' 

Cyprian observes, that "the Angel who ap- 
peared to the patriarch is Christ and God." And 
this he confirms by producing a number of those 
passages from the Old Testament where it is 
said that an Angel of the Lord appeared and 
spake in the name of God. 

Hilary speaks to the same purpose : — "He who 
is called the Angel of God, the same is Lord and 
God. For the Son of God, according to the pro- 
phet, is the Angel of the great council. That the 
distinction of persons might be entire, he is 
called the Angel of God ; for he who is God of 
God, the same also is the Angel (or Messenger) 
of God; and yet, at the same time, that due 
honor might be paid, he is also called Lord and 
God." 

St. Basil says, "Who then is it that is called 
both an angel and God? Is it not He whose 
name, we are told, is called the Angel of the great 
Covenant ? For though it was in aftertimes that 
he became the Angel of the great Covenant, yet 
even before that he did not disdain the title of 
an Angel, or Messenger." Again : — " It is mani- 
fest to every one, that where the same person is 
styled both an Angel and God, it must be meant 
of the only-begotten, who manifests himself to 
mankind in different generations, and declares 
the will of the Father to his saints. Wherefore, 
he who, at his appearing to Moses, called himself 
I am, cannot be conceived to be any other person 
than God, the Word who icas in the beginning with 
God." 

Other authorities may bo seen in Waterland's 

Defence of Queries, that decidedly refutes Dr. 

Samuel Clarke, who pretends, in order to oover 

his Arianism, that the fathers represenl the angel 

as speaking in the person of the Father. 

den^Two objections to this doctrine, taken from the 

names, lives, are answered without difficulty. 

conncctioiybo at sundry limes, and in divers man- 



284 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



ners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us 
by his Son." To those only who deny the mani- 
festation and agency of the Father in every case 
in the Old Testament, this passage presents a 
difficulty. God the Father is certainly meant by 
the apostle, and he is said to have spoken by the 
prophets. But this is no difficulty to those -who, 
though they contend that the ordinary appear- 
ances of the Deity were those of the Son, yet 
allow the occasional manifestation of the Father. 
He is the fountain of inspiration. The Son is 
sent by the Father, but the Spirit is sent by the 
Father and by the Son. This is the order in the 
New Testament, and also, as many passages show, 
in the Old. The Spirit sent by the Father 
qualified the prophets to speak unto "our 
fathers." The apostle, however, says nothing 
more than that there was an agency of the Father 
in sending the prophets, which does not exclude 
that of the Son also ; for the opposition lies in 
the outward Risible and standing means of convey- 
ing the knowledge of the will of God to men, 
which under the law was by mere men, though 
prophets : under the Gospel, by the incarnate 
Son. Communication by prophets under the law, 
did not exclude other communications by the Son 
in his Divine character ; and communication by 
the Son under the Gospel, does not exclude other 
communications by apostles, evangelists, and 
Christian prophets. The text is not therefore an 
exclusive proposition either way. It is not clear, 
indeed, that any direct opposition at all is intended 
in the text, but a simple declaration of the equal 
authority of both dispensations, and the peculiar 
glory of the latter, whose human minister and 
revealer was the Son of God in our nature. 

The second objection rests upon a passage in 
the same epistle. "If the word spoken by angels 
was steadfast, and every transgression and diso- 
bedience received a just recompense of reward, 
how shall we escape if we neglect so great salva- 
tion, which at first began to be spoken by the 
Lord?" To understand this passage, it is to be 
noted, that the apostle refers to the judicial law 
of Moses, which had its prescribed penalty for 
every "transgression and disobedience." Now 
this law was not, like the decalogue, spoken by 
God himself, but by angels. For after the voice 
of God had spoken the ten commandments, the 
people entreated that God would not speak to 
them any more. Accordingly, Moses says, Deut. 
v. 22 7 "These words," the decalogue, "the Lord 
spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out 
of the midst of the fire, with a great voice ; and 
he added no more. And he wrote them in t Tine 
tables of stone, and delivered them unto 



pst the 
cript to 



[part tl 

The rest, "both the judicial and the ceremonial 
law, was delivered, and the covenant was made, 
by the mediation of Moses; and therefore the 
apostle says, Gal. iii. 19, ' The law was ordained 
by angels in the hand of a mediator:' hence it is 
called the law of Moses. And the character 
given of it in the Pentateuch is this, — these are 
the statutes, and judgments, and laws which the 
Lord made between him and the children of Israel 
in Mount Sinai, by the hand of Moses." — Ran- 
dolph, Prcel. Theolog. 

Nor does the apostle's argument respect the 
author of the law, for no one can suppose that 
angels were its authors ; nor the giver of the law, 
for angels have no such authority; but the 
medium through which it was communicated, or 
"spoken." In the case of the decalogue, that 
medium was the Lord, the Angel Jehovah him- 
self in majesty; but in the body of judicial and 
ceremonial laws, to which he clearly refers, 
angels and Moses. The visible medium by which 
the gospel was communicated, was the Son of 
God made flesh. That word was "spoken by the 
Lord," not only in his personal, but in his media- 
torial character; and, by that wonderful con- 
descension, its importance, and the danger of 
neglecting it, were marked in the most eminent 
and impressive manner. 

It has now therefore been established that the 
Angel Jehovah, and Jesus Christ our Lord, are 
the same person; and this is the first great 
argument by which his Divinity is established. 
He not only existed before his incarnation, but 
is seen at the head of the religious institutions 
of his own Church, up to the earliest ages. We 
trace the manifestations of the same person from 
Adam to Abraham: from Abraham to Moses: 
from Moses to the prophets : from the prophets 
to Jesus. Under every manifestation he has 
appeared in the form of God, never thinking it 
robbery to be equal with God. "Dressed in the 
appropriate robes of God's state, wearing God's 
crown, and wielding God's sceptre," he has ever 
received Divine homage and honor. No name is 
given to the Angel Jehovah which is not given 
to Jehovah Jesus : no attribute is ascribed to the 
one which is not ascribed to the other : the wor- 
ship which was paid to the one by patriarchs and 
prophets, was paid to the other by evangelists 
and apostles ; and the Scriptures declare them to 
be the same august person, — the image of the 
Invisible, whom no man can see and live, — tk> 
Redeemim an" 7 "?, the Redeeming Kinsmav, and the 
ifeflktament. 

These views are confirm our Lord is invested 
of the early fathers, to aS of absolute Divinity, 
the apostles, on this e next chapter. 
I affected by the contro T 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



285 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE TITLES OF CHEIST. 

Various proofs were adduced, in the last 
chapter, that the visible Jehovah of the Old 
Testament is to be regarded as a Being distinct 
from the Father, yet having Divine titles 
ascribed to him, being arrayed with Divine attri- 
butes, and performing Divine works equal to his. 
That this august Being was the same who after- 
ward appeared as " The Christ," in the person 
of Jesus of Nazareth, was also proved ; and the 
conclusion of that branch of the argument was, 
that Jesus Christ is, in an absolute sense, a Divine 
person, and as such is to be received and adored. 

It is difficult to conceive any point more satis- 
factorily established in the Scriptures than the 
personal appearance of our Lord, during the 
patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, under a 
Divine character ; but this argument, so far from 
having exhausted the proof of his Godhead, is 
only another in that series of rising steps by 
which we are at length conducted to the most 
unequivocal and ample demonstration of this 
great and fundamental doctrine. 

The next argument is stated at the head of 
this chapter. If the titles given to Christ are 
such as can designate a Divine Being, and a 
Divine Being only, then is he to whom they are 
by inspired authority ascribed, Divine ; or other- 
wise the Word of Truth must stand charged 
with practicing a direct deception upon mankind, 
and that in a fundamental article of religion. 
This is our argument, and we proceed to the 
illustration. 

The first of these titles which calls for our 
attention is that of Jehovah. Whether "the 
Angel Jehovah" were the future Christ or not, 
does not affect this case. Even Socinians ac- 
knowledge Jesus to be the Messiah ; and if this 
is one of the titles of the promised Messiah, it 
is consequently a title of our Lord, and must be 
ascribed to him by all who believe Jesus to be 
the Messiah. 

So many instances of this were given in the 
preceding chapter, that it is unnecessary to repeat 
them ; and, indeed, the fact that the name Jeho- 
vah is applied to the Messiah in many passages 
of the Old Testament, is admitted by the manner 
in which the argument deduced from this fact is 
objected to by our opponents. "The Jewish 
Cabbalists," says Dr. Priestley, "might easily 
admit that the Messiah might be called Jehovah, 
without supposing that he was any thing more 
than a man, who had no existence before his 
birth." "Several things in the Scriptures are 
called by the name of Jehovah ; as, Jerusalem is 



called Jehovah our Righteousness." [History of 
Early Opinions.) They are not, however, the 
Jewish interpreters only who give the name 
Jehovah to Messiah ; but the inspired prophets 
themselves, in passages which, by the equally 
inspired evangelists and apostles, are applied to 
Jesus. No instance can be given in which any 
being, acknowledged by all to be a created being, 
is called Jehovah in the Scriptures, or was so 
called among the Jews. The peculiar sacredness 
attached to this name among them, was a suffi- 
cient guard against such an application of it in 
their common language ; and as for the Scrip- 
tures, they explicitly represent it as peculiar to 
Divinity itself. "I am Jehovah, that is my name, 
and my glory will I not give to another" "I am 
Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God 
beside me." "Thou, whose name alone is Jeho- 
vah, art the Most High, over all the earth." The 
peculiarity of the name is often strongly stated 
by Jewish commentators, which sufficiently re- 
futes Dr. Priestley, who affirms that they could 
not, on that account, conclude the Messiah to be 
more than a man. Kimchi paraphrases Isaiah 
xliii. 8, "Jehovah, that is my name" — "that 
name is proper to me." On Hosea xii. 5, "Jeho- 
vah his memorial," he says: "In the name El 
and Elohim, he communicates with others ; but 
in this name he communicates with none." Aben 
Ezra, on Exodus iii. 14, proves at length that 
this name is proper to God. — Hoornbeck, Socin. 
Confut. 

It is surely a miserable pretence to allege that 
this name is sometimes given to places. It is so; 
but only in composition with some other word, 
and not surely as indicative of any quality in the 
places themselves, but as memorials of the acts 
and goodness of Jehovah himself, as manifested 
in those localities. So " Jehovah- Jireh, in the 
mount of the Lord it shall be seen," or, "the 
Lord will see or provide," referred to his inter- 
position to save Isaac, and probably to the provi- 
sion of the future sacrifice of Christ. The same 
observation may be made as to Jehovah Nissi, 
Jehovah Shallum, etc. : they are names not de- 
scriptive of places, but of events connected with 
them, which marked the interposition and cha- 
racter of God himself. It is an unsettled point 
among critics whether Jah, which is sometimes 
found in composition as a proper name of a man, 
as Abijah, Jehovah is my father, Adonijah, Jeho- 
vah is my lord, be an abbreviation of Jehovah or 
not, so that the case will afford no ground of 
argument. But if it were, it would avail nothing, 
for it is found only in a combined form, and evi- 
dently relates not to the persons who bore these 
names, as a descriptive appellation, but to some 
connection which existed, or was supposed to 



286 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



exist, between them and the Jehovah they ac- 
knowledged as their God. The cases would have 
been parallel had our Lord been called Abijah, 
"Jehovah is my father," or Jedediah, "the 
beloved of Jehovah." Nothing in that case 
would have been furnished, so far as mere name 
was concerned, to distinguish him from his 
countrymen bearing the same appellatives ; but 
he is called Jehovah himself, a name which the 
Scriptures give to no person whatever, except to 
each of the sacred Three, who stand forth, in 
the pages of the Old and New Testaments, 
crowned with this supreme and exclusive honor 
and eminence. 

Nor is it true that, in Jeremiah xxxiii. 16, 
Jerusalem is called "Jehovah our Righteous- 
ness. " The parallel passage in the same book, 
chap, xxiii. 5, 6, sufficiently shows that this is 
not the name of Jerusalem, but the name of "The 
Branch. " Much criticism has been bestowed 
upon these passages, to establish the point whe- 
ther the chru.se ought to be rendered, "And this 
is the name by which the Lord shall call him, 
our Righteousness," or, "This is the name by 
which he shall be called, the Lord our Righteous- 
ness :" which last has, I think, been decisively 
established ; but he would be a very exception- 
able critic who should conclude either of them 
to be an appellative, not of Messiah, but of 
Jerusalem, contrary both to the scope of the 
passage and to the literal rendering of the words 
— words capable of somewhat different construc- 
tions, but in no case capable of being applied 
either to the people of Judah, or to the city of 
Jerusalem. 

The force of the argument from the applica- 
tion of the name Jehovah to Messiah, may be 
thus stated : 

"Whatever belongs to Messiah, that may and 
must be attributed to Jesus, as being the true 
and only Christ ; and, accordingly, we have seen 
that the evangelists and apostles apply those 
passages to our Lord, in which the Messiah is 
unequivocally called Jehovah. But this is the 
peculiar and appropriate name of God: that 
name by which he is distinguished from all other 
beings, and which imports perfections so high 
and appropriate to the only living and true God, 
such as self-existence and eternity, that it can, 
in truth, be a descriptive appellation of no other 
being. It is, however, solemnly and repeatedly 
given to the 3Iessiah ; and, unless we can suppose 
Scripture to contradict itself, by making that a 
peculiar name which is not peculiar to him, and 
to establish an inducement to that idolatry which- 
it so sternly condemns, and an excuse for it. then 
this adorable name itself declares the absolute 
Divinity of him who is invested with it, and is to 



[PART II. 

him, as well as to the Father, a name of revela- 
tion — a name descriptive of the attributes which 
can pertain only to essential Godhead. 

This conclusion is corroborated by the con- 
stant use of the title "Lord" as an appellation 
of Jesus, the Messiah, when manifest in the flesh. 
His disciples not only applied to him those pas- 
sages of the Old Testament in which the Messias 
is called Jehovah, but salute and worship him by 
a title which is of precisely the same original 
import, and which is therefore to be considered, 
in many places of the Septuagint and the New 
Testament, an exact translation of the august 
name Jehovah, and fully equivalent to it in its 
import. 1 It is allowed that it is also used as the 
translation of other names of God, which import 
simply dominion ; and that it is applied also to 
merely human masters and rulers. It is not, 
therefore, like the Jehovah of the Old Testament, 
an incommunicable name, but, in its highest sense, it 
is universally allowed to belong to God ; and if, 
in this highest sense, it is applied to Christ, then 
is the argument valid that in the sacred writers, 
whether used to express the self and independent 
existence of him who bears it, or that dominion 
which, from its nature and circumstances, must 
be Divine, it contains a notation of true and 
absolute Divinity. 

The first proof of this is, that, both in the 
Septuagint and by the writers of the New Testa- 
ment, it is the term by which the name Jehovah 
is translated. The Socinians have a fiction that 
Kvpcog properly answers to Adonai, because the 
Jews were wont, in reading, to substitute that 
name in place of Jehovah. But this is sufficiently 
answered by Bishop Pearson, who observes, that 
" it is not probable that the LXX should think 
Kvptog to be the proper interpretation of "-x, 
and yet give it to Jehovah, only in the place of 
Adonai; for if they had, it would have followed, 
that when Adonai and Jehovah had met in one 
sentence, they would not have put another word 
for Adonai, and placed Kvpwc for Jehovah, to 
which of itself, according to their observation, it 
did not belong." "The reason also of the asser- 
tion is most uncertain; for, though it be con- 
fessed that the Masoreths did read Adonai when 
they found Jehovah, and Josephus before them 
expresses the sense of the Jews of his age, that 
the Terpaypdfifiarov was not to be pronounced, and 
before him Philo speaks as much, yet it followeth 
not from thence that the Jews were so supersti- 
tious above three hundred years before, which 

1 Bishop Pearson, on the second article of the Creed, thus 
concludes a learned note on the etymology of KtyHOC, 
Lord : " From all -which it undeniably appeareth, that the 
ancient signification of Krow i s tne same with elul, or 
v~ctpx u > sum > I am " 






CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



287 



must be proved before we can be assured that 
the LXX read Adonai for Jehovah, and for that 
reason translated it Kvpioc." (Discourses on the 
Creed.) The supposition is, however, wholly 
overturned by several passages, in which such an 
interchange of the names could not be made in 
the original, without manifestly depriving them 
of all meaning, and which absurdity could not, 
therefore, take place in a translation, and be thus 
made permanent. It is sufficient to instance 
Exodus vi. 2, 3 : "lam the Lord ; (Jehovah ; ) and 
I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto 
Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by 
my name Jehovah was I not known unto them." 
This, it is true, is rather an obscure passage ; 
but whatever may be its interpretation, this is 
clear, that a substitution of Adonai for Jehovah 
would deprive it of all meaning whatever, and 
yet here the LXX translate Jehovah by Kvpioc. 

Kvpiog, Lord, is, then, the word into which the 
Greek of the Septuagint renders the name Jeho- 
vah; and, in all passages in which Messias is 
called by that peculiar title of Divinity, we have 
the authority of this version to apply it, in its 
full and highest signification, to Jesus Christ, 
who is himself that Messias. For this reason, 
and also because, as men inspired, they were 
directed to fit and proper terms, the writers of 
the New Testament apply this appellation to 
their Master, when they quote these prophetic 
passages as fulfilled in him. They found it used 
in the Greek version of the Old Testament, in 
its highest possible import, as a rendering of Je- 
hovah. Had they thought Jesus less than God, 
they ought to have avoided, and must have 
avoided, giving to him a title which would mis- 
lead their readers ; or else have intimated that 
they did not use it in its highest sense, as a title 
of Divinity, but in its very lowest, as a term of 
merely human courtesy, or, at best, of human 
dominion. But we have no such intimation ; 
and, if they wrote under the inspiration of the 
Spirit of Truth, it follows that they used it as 
being understood to be fully equivalent to the 
title Jehovah itself. This their quotations will 
show. The Evangelist Matthew (iii. 3) quotes 
and applies to Christ the celebrated prophecy of 
Isaiah xl. 3 : " For this is he that was spoken of 
by the Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one 
crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of 
the Lord, make his paths straight." The other 
evangelists make the same application of it, re- 
presenting John as the herald of Jesus, the 
"Jehovah" of the prophet, and their "Kvpioc." 
It was, therefore, in the highest possible sense 
that they used the term, because they used it as 
fully equivalent to Jehovah. So again, in Luke 
i. 16, 17: "And many of the children of Israel 



shall he turn to the Lord their God, and he 
shall go before him in the spirit and power of 
Elias." "Him," unquestionably refers to "the 
Lord their God ;" and we have here a proof that 
Christ bears that eminent title of Divinity, so 
frequent in the Old Testament, "the Lord God," 
Jehovah Aleim ; and also that Kvpiog answered, 
in the view of an inspired writer, to the name 
Jehovah. On this point the Apostle Paul also 
adds his testimony, Romans x. 13, "Whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
saved;" which is quoted from Joel ii. 32, "Who- 
soever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall 
be delivered." Other passages might be added, 
but the argument does not rest upon their num- 
ber : these are so explicit that they are amply 
sufficient to establish the important conclusion, 
that, in whatever senses the term "Lord" may 
be used, and though the writers of the New 
Testament, like ourselves, use it occasionally in 
a lower sense, yet they use it also in its highest 
possible sense, and in its loftiest signification, 
when they intended it to be understood as equiva- 
lent to Jehovah, and in that sense they apply 
it to Christ. 

But even when the title "Lord" is not em- 
ployed to render the name Jehovah, in passages 
quoted from the Old Testament, but is used as 
the common appellation of Christ, after his 
resurrection, the disciples so connect it with 
other terms, and with circumstances which so 
clearly imply Divinity, that it cannot reasonably 
be made a question but that they themselves 
considered it as a Divine title, and intended that 
it should be so understood by their readers. Ln 
that sense they applied it to the Father, and it 
is clear that they did not use it in a lower sense 
when they gave it to the Son. It is put abso- 
lutely, and by way of eminence, "the Lord." It 
is joined with "God:" so in the passage above 
quoted from St. Luke, where Christ is called the 
Lord God ; and when Thomas, in an act of ado- 
ration, calls him "My Lord and my God." 
When it is used to express dominion, that do- 
minion is represented as absolute and universal, 
and, therefore, Divine. "He is Lord of all" 
"Kino of kings and Lord of lords ." "Thou, 
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation 
of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of 
thy hands. They shall perish, but thou re- 
mainest; and they all shall wax old, as doth a 
garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them 
up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the 
same, and thy years shall not fail." 

Thus, then, the titles of "Jehovah" and 
"Lord" both prove the Divinity of our Saviour ; 
"for," as it is remarked by Dr. Waterland, "if 
Jehovah signify tho eternal, immutable God, it 



288 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



is manifest that the name is incommunicable, 
since there is but one God ; and, if the name be 
incommunicable, then Jehovah can signify nothing 
but that one God to whom, and to whom only, it 
is applied. And if both these parts be true, 
and if it be true, likewise, that this name is ap- 
plied to Christ, the consequence is irresistible 
that Christ is the same one God, not the same 
person, with the Father, to whom also the name 
Jehovah is attributed, but the same substance, 
the same being, in a word, the same Jehovah, 
thus revealed to be more persons than one." 

God. That this title is attributed to Christ is 
too obvious to be wholly denied, though some of 
the passages which have been alleged as in- 
stances of this application of the term have 
been controverted. Even in this a great point is 
gained. Jesus Christ is called God: this the 
adversaries of his Divinity are obliged to confess, 
and this confession admits that the letter of 
Scripture is, therefore, in favor of orthodox 
opinions. It is, indeed, said that the term God, 
like the term Lord, is used in an inferior sense ; 
but nothing is gained by this : nothing is, on 
that account, proved against the Deity of Christ; 
for it must still be allowed that it is a term used 
in Scripture to express the Divine nature, and 
that it is so used generally. The question, 
therefore, is only limited to this, whether our 
Lord is called God in the highest sense of that 
appellation. This might, indeed, be argued 
from those passages in the Old Testament in 
which the title is given to the acting, manifested 
Jehovah, " the Lord God" of the Old Testament ; 
but this having been anticipated, I confine my- 
self chiefly to the evangelists and apostles. 

Before that proof is adduced, which will most 
unequivocally show that Jesus Christ is called 
God in the highest sense of that term, it will, 
however, be necessary to show that, in its high- 
est sense, it involves the notion of absolute 
Divinity. This has been denied : Sir Isaac New- 
ton, who, on theological subjects, as Bishop 
Horsley observes, ''went out like a common 
man," says that the word God "is a relative 
term, and has a regard to servants : it is true it 
denotes a Being eternal, infinite, and absolutely 
perfect; but a Being, however eternal, infinite, 
and absolutely perfect, without dominion, would 
not be God." (Philos. Nat. Mathce. in calce.) 
This relative notion of the term, as itself import- 
ing strictly nothing more than dominion, was 
adopted by Dr. S. Clarke, and made use of to 
support his semi-Arianism ; and it seems to have 
been thought that, by confining the term to ex- 
press mere sovereignty, the force of all those 
passages of Scripture in which Christ is called 
God, and from which his absolute Divinity is 



[part II. 

argued, might be avoided. His words are, "The 
word Qebc, God, has, in Scripture, and in all 
books of morality and religion, a relative signi- 
fication, and not, as in metaphysical books, an 
absolute one : as is evident from the relative 
terms which, in moral writings, may always be 
joined with it. For instance: in the same man- 
ner as we say my father, my king, and the like, 
so it is proper also to say my God, the God of 
Israel, the God of the universe, and the like. 
Which words are expressive of dominion and 
government. But, in the metaphysical way, it 
cannot be said, my Infinite Substance, the Infi- 
nite Substance of Israel, and the like." 

To this, Dr. Waterland's reply is an ample 
confutation. " I shall only observe here, by the 
way, that the word star is a relative word, for 
the same reason with that which the Doctor gives 
for the other. For the star of your god Remphan 
(Acts vii. 43) is a proper expression ; but, in the 
metaphysical way, it cannot be said, the luminous 
substance of your god Remphan. So, again, water 
is a relative word, for it is proper to say, the 
water of Israel; but, in the metaphysical way, it 
cannot be said, the fluid substance of Israel. The 
expression is improper. 1 By parity of reason, 
we may make relative words almost as many as 
we please. But to proceed: I maintain that 
dominion is not the full import of the word God 
in Scripture : that it is but a part of the idea, 
and a small part, too ; and that if any person be 
called God, merely on account of dominion, he is 
called so by way of figure and resemblance only, 
and is not properly God, according to the Scrip- 
ture notion of it. We may call any one a king 
who lives free and independent, subject to no 
man's will. He is a king so far, or in some re- 
spects, though, in many other respects, nothing 
like one, and, therefore, not properly a king. 
If, by the same figure of speech, by way of al- 
lusion and resemblance, any thing be called God, 
because resembling God in one or more particu- 
lars, we are not to conclude that it is properly 
and truly God. 

" To enlarge something further upon this 
head, and to illustrate the case by a few in- 
stances. Part of the idea which goes along with 
the word God is, that his habitation is sublime, 
and his dwelling not with flesh. Dan. ii. 11. This 
part of the idea is applicable to angels or to saints, 

1 It is very obvious to perceive where the impropriety of 
such expressions lies. The word substance, according to 
the common use of language, when used in the singular 
number, is supposed to be intrinsic to the thing spoken of, 
whose substance it is ; and, indeed, to be the thing itself. 
My substance is myself; and the substance of Israel is 
Israel. And hence it evinces to be improper to join sub- 
stance with the relative terms, understanding it of any 
thing intrinsic. 



CH. XII.] 



and therefore they may thus far be reputed gods; 
and are sometimes so styled in Scripture or ec- 
clesiastical writings. Another part of the com- 
plex idea of God is giving orders from above, 
and publishing commands from heaven. This 
was, in some sense, applicable to Moses, who is, 
therefore, called a god unto Pharaoh; not as be- 
ing properly a god, but instead of God, in that 
instance, or that resembling circumstance. In 
the same respect every prophet or apostle, or even 
a minister of a parish, might be figuratively 
called god. Dominion goes along with the idea 
of God, or is a proof of it ; and, therefore, kings, 
princes, and magistrates, resembling God in that 
respect, may, by the like figure of speech, be 
styled gods; not properly, for then we might a3 
properly say God David, God Solomon, or God 
Jeroboam, as King David, etc. ; but by way of 
allusion, and in regard to some imperfect resem- 
blance which they bear to God in some particu- 
lar respects ; and that is all. It belongs to God 
to receive worship, and sacrifice, and homage. 
Now, because the heathen idols so far resembled 
God as to be made the objects of worship, etc., 
therefore they also, by the same figure of speech, 
are by the Scripture denominated gods, though, 
at the same time, they are declared, in a proper 
sense, to be no gods. The belly is called the god 
of the luxurious, (Phil. iii. 19,) because some are 
as much devoted to the service of their bellies as 
others are to the service of God, and because 
their lusts have got the dominion over them. This 
way of speaking is, in like manner, grounded on 
some imperfect resemblance, and is easily under- 
stood. The prince of the devils is supposed by 
most interpreters to be called the god of this 
world. 2 Cor. iv. 4. If so, the reason may be, 
either because the men of this world are entirely 
devoted to his service, or that he has got the 
power and dominion over them. 

"Thus we see how the word God, according to 
the popular way of speaking, has been applied 
to angels, or to men, or to things inanimate and 
insensible ; because some part of the idea be- 
longing to God has been conceived to belong to 
them also. To argue from hence that any of 
them is properly God, is making the whole of a 
part, and reasoning fallaciously, a dido secundum 
quid, as the schools speak, ad dictum simpliciter. 
If wo inquire carefully into the Scripture notion 
of the word, we shall find that neither dominion 
singly, nor all the other instances of resemblanco, 
make up the idea, or are sufficient to denominate 
any thing properly God. When the prince of 
Tyre pretended to be God, (Ezek. xxviii. 2,) he 
thought of something more than mere dominion 
to make him so. Ho thought of strength invin- 
cible and power irresistible ; and God whs pleased 
19 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



289 



to convince him of his folly and vanity, not by 
telling him how scanty his dominion was, or how 
low his office; but how weak, frail, and perishing 
his nature was : that he was man only, and not 
God, (Ezek. xxviii. 2-9,) and should surely find so 
by the event. When the Lycaonians, upon the 
sight of a miracle wrought by St. Paul, (Acts xiv. 
11,) took him and Barnabas for gods, they did not 
think so much of dominion as of power and ability, 
beyond human ; and when the apostles answered 
them, they did not tell them that their dominion 
was only human, or that their office was not Divine, 
but that they had not a Divine nature. They were 
weak, frail, and feeble men, of like infirmities with 
the rest of their species, and, therefore, no gods. 

"If we trace the Scripture notion of what is 
truly and properly God, we shall find it made up 
of these several ideas : infinite wisdom, power in- 
vincible, all-sufficiency, and the like. These are 
the ground and foundation of dominion, which is 
but a secondary notion, a consequence of the 
former ; and it must be dominion supreme, and 
none else, which will suit with the Scripture 
notion of God. It is not that of a governor, a 
ruler, & protector, a lord, or the like, but a sove- 
reign Ruler, an almighty Protector, an omniscient 
and omnipresent Governor, an eternal, immutable, 
all-sufficient Creator, Preserver, and Protector. 
Whatever falls short of this is not properly, in 
the Scripture notion, God, but is only called so 
by way of figure, as has before been explained. 
Now, if you ask me why the relative terms may 
properly be applied to the word God, the reason 
is plain, because there is something relative in 
the whole idea of God, namely, the notion of 
governor, protector, etc. If you ask why they 
cannot so properly be applied to the word God 
in the metaphysical sense, besides the reason before 
given, there is another as plain, because meta- 
physics, taking in only one part of the idea, con- 
sider the nature abstracted from the relation, 
leaving the relative part out." 

To these observations may be added the argu- 
ment of Dr. Randolph. ( Vindication of Christ's 
Divinity.) "If God be a relative term, which 
has reference to subjects, it follows that when 
there were no subjects there was no God; and, 
consequently, either the creatures must have 
been some of them eternal, or there must have 
been a time when there was no God." The 
matter, however, is put boyond all doubt, by the 
express testimony that it is not dominion only, 
but excellence of nature and attributes exclu- 
sively Divine which enter into the notion of God, 
Thus, in Psalm xc, "Before tho mountains were 
brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the 
earth and tho world, even from everlasting to ever- 
lasting, thou art God." Hero tho idea of eternity 



290 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



is attached to the term, and he is declared to be 
God "from everlasting" and, consequently, before 
any creature's existence, and so before he could 
have any "subjects" or exercise any "dominion." 

The import of the title God, in its highest 
sense, being thus established to include all the 
excellences and glories of the Divine nature, on 
which alone such a dominion as is ascribed to 
God could be maintained, if that title be found 
ascribed to Christ, at any period, in this its 
highest sense, it will prove, not, as the Arians 
•would have it, his dominion only, but his Divinity ; 
and it is no answer to this at all to say that men 
are sometimes called gods in the Scripture. In 
the New Testament the term God, in the singular, 
is never applied to any man ; and it is even a 
debated matter whether it is ever a human ap- 
pellation, either in the singular or the plural, in 
the Old Testament, the passages quoted being 
probably elliptical, or capable of another expla- 
nation. 1 But this is not important: if, in its 
highest sense, it is found used of Christ, it 
matters not to how many persons it is applied in 
its lower, or as a merely figurative appellation. 

Matthew i. 23 : "Now all this was done, that 
it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the 
Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin 
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, 
and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which 
being interpreted is, God with us." This is a 
portion of Scripture which the Socinians, in 
their "Improved Version," have printed in 
italics, as of "doubtful authority," though, with 
the same breath, they allow that it is found "in 
all the manuscripts and versions which are now 
extant." The ground, therefore, on which they 
have rested their objection is confessedly narrow 
and doubtful, and, frail as it is, it has been en- 
tirely taken from them, and the authority of this 
scripture fully established. ( Vide Nares's Re- 
marks on the New Version.) The reason of an 
attempt so bold and futile to expunge this pas- 
sage, and the following part of St. Matthew's 
history which is connected with it, may be found 
in the explicitness of the testimony which it 
bears to our Lord's Divinity, and which no 

1 Exodus vii. 1 : " See I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." 
This seems to be explained by chapter iv. 16 : " Thou shalt 
be to him instead of God." Psalm lxxxii. 1 : " God standeth 
in the congregation of the mighty: [Heb. of God:] he 
judgcth among the gods." This passage is rendered by 
Parkhurst, "The Aleim stand in the congregation of God: 
in the midst the Aleim will judge." And on verse 6, "I 
have said ye are gods," he supposes an ellipsis of Caph, " I 
have said ye are as gods." As this is spoken of judges, 
■who were professedly God's vicegerents, this is a very natu- 
ral ellipsis, and there appears nothing against it in the 
argument of our Lord, John x. 34. The term, as used in 
fill these passages, does not so much appear to be used in a 
lower sense, as by figurative application and ellipsis. 



[PART II. 

criticism could evade. The prophecy which is 
quoted by the evangelist has its difficulties ; but 
they do not in the least affect the argument. 
Whether we can explain Isaiah or not, that is, 
whether we can show in what manner the pro- 
phecy had a primary accomplishment in the 
prophet's day or not, St. Matthew is sufficiently 
intelligible. He tells us, that the words spoken 
by the prophet were spoken of Christ ; and that 
his miraculous conception took place, "that," in 
order that, "they might be fulfilled:" a mode of 
expression so strong, that even those who allow 
the prophets to be quoted sometimes by way of 
accommodation by the writers of the New Testa- 
ment, except this instance, as having manifestly, 
from the terms used, the form of an argument, 
and not of a mere allusion. 2 Further, says the 
sacred historian, "and they shall call his name 
Emmanuel ;" that is, according to the idiom of 
Scripture, where any thing is said to be called 
what it in reality is, he shall be "Emmanuel," and 
the interpretation is added, "God with us." 

It is indeed objected, that the Divinity of 
Christ can. no more be argued from this title of 
Emmanuel than the divinity of Eli, whose name 
signifies my God, or of Elihu, which imports my 
God himself; but it is to be remarked, that by 
these names such individuals were commonly 
and constantly known among those with whom 
they lived. But Immanuel was not the personal 
name of our Lord, he was not so called by his 
friends and countrymen familiarly : the personal 
name which he received was Jesus, by Divine 
direction, and by this he was known to the 
world. It follows, therefore, that Immanuel was 
a descriptive title, a name of revelation, expressive 
of his Divine character. It is clear, also, that in 
this passage he is called God ; and two circum- 
stances, in addition to that just mentioned, prove 
that the term is used in its full and highest sense. 
In Isaiah, from which the passage is quoted by 
the evangelist, the land of Judea is called the 
land of this Immanuel more than seven centuries 
before he was born. "And he (the Assyrian) 
shall pass through Judah : he shall overflow and 
go over, he shall reach even to the neck, and the 
stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth 
of thy land, Immanuel," chap. viii. 8. Thus 
is Christ, according to the argument in a former 
chapter, represented as existing before his birth 
in Judea, and, as the God of the Jews, the pro- 
prietor of the land of Israel. This also gives 
the true explanation of St. John's words, "He 

2 "Formula citandi qua Evangelista utitur cap. i. 22, 
tovto de okov yeyovev, Iva 7ivb7pa;#// to firj-dlv 
manifeste este argumentantis, non comparantis, quae niag- 
nopere diversa est ab alia ejusdem Evangelistas et aliorum," 
etc. {Bathe, in Isa. vii. 14.) 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



291 



came unto his own, [nation] and his own [people] 
received him not." The second circumstance 
■which proves the term God, in the title Inimanuel, 
to be used in its highest sense is, that the same 
person, in the following chapter of Isaiah, is 
called "God," with the epithet of "mighty," — 
"Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God." 
Thus, as Bishop Pearson observes, "First he is 
i Immanu,' > that is, with us, for he hath dwelt 
among us ; and when he parted from the earth, 
he said to his disciples, ' I am with you alway, 
even to the end of the world.' Secondly, he is 
El, and that name was given him, as the . same 
prophet testified, 'his name shall be called 
Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God.' He 
then who is both properly called El, that is, God, 
and is also really Immanu, that is, with us, must 
infallibly be that 'Immanuel,' who is ' God with 
us.' No inferior Deity, but invested with the 
full and complete attributes of absolute Divinity 
—'the Mighty God.'" 

In Luke i. 16, 17, it is said of John Baptist, 
"And many of the children of Israel shall he 
turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go 
before him in the spirit and power of Elias." 
This passage has been already adduced to prove 
that the title "Lord" is used of Christ in the 
import of Jehovah. But he is called the Lord 
their God, and as the term Lord is used in its 
highest sense, so must also the term God, which 
proves that this title is given to our Saviour in 
its fullest and most extended meaning — "to 
Jehovah their God," or "to their God Jehovah," 
for the meaning is the same. 

John i. 1 : "In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God." When we come to consider the title 
"The Word," Aoyog, this passage will be ex- 
amined more at large. Here it is adduced to 
prove that the Logos, by whom all understand 
Christ, is called God in the highest sense. 1. 
Because when it is used of the Father, in the 
preceding clause, it must be used in its full im- 
port. 2. Because immediately to call our Lord 
by the same name as the Father, without any 
hint of its being used in a lower sense, would 
have been to mislead the reader on a most im- 
portant question, if St. John had not regarded 
him as equal to the Father. 3. Because the 
creation is ascribed to the "Word," who is called 
God. "All things were made by him, and with- 
out him was not any thing made that was made." 
By this the absolute Divinity of Christ is infallibly 
determined, unless we should run into the ab- 
BUrdity of supposing it possible for a creature to 
oreate, and not only to create all other created 
things, but himself also. For, if Christ be not 
God, he is a creature; and if "not any tiling 



that was made" was made "without him," then 
he made himself. 

This decided passage, as maybe supposed, has 
been subjected to much critical scrutiny by the 
enemies of the faith, and many attempts have 
been made to resist its force. It is objected, 
that the Father is called 6 Qebg, and the "Word" 
simply Qebg, without the article. To which Dr. 
Middleton replies : 

"Certain critics, as is well known, have in- 
ferred from the absence of the article in this 
place, that Qebg is here used in a subordinate 
sense : it has, however, been so satisfactorily 
answered that in whatever acceptation debg is to 
be taken, it properly rejects the article, being 
here the predicate of the proposition ; and Bengel 
instances the LXX, 1 Kings xviii. 24, ovrog Qebg, 
as similar to the present passage. It may be 
added, that if we had read 6 Qebg, the proposi- 
tion would have assumed the convertible form, 
and the meaning would have been, that whatever 
may be affirmed or denied of God the Father, 
may also be affirmed or denied of the Logos — a 
position which would accord as little with the 
trinitarian as with the Socinian hypothesis. It 
it, therefore, unreasonable to infer that the word 
Qebg is here used in a lower sense; for the writer 
could not have written f O Qebg without manifest 
absurdity." (Doctrine of the Greek Article.) 

In many passages, too, in which, without dis- 
pute, Qebg is meant of the Supreme Being, the 
article is not used. Matthew xix. 26 : " With 
men this is impossible, but with God (Qeti) all 
things are possible." Lukexvi. 13: "Ye cannot 
serve God (Qeti) and mammon." John i. 18: "No 
man hath seen God (Qebv) at any time." John 
ix. 33 : " If this man were not of God, (Qeov,) he 
could do nothing." John xvi. 30: "By this we 
believe that thou earnest from God," (Qeov.) 
Many other instances might be given, but these 
amply reply to the objection. 

To evade the force of the argument drawn from 
the creation being ascribed to the Word, a cir- 
cumstance which fixes his title "God" in its 
highest possible sense, it is alleged that the word 
ytvofxac never signifies to create, and the Socinian 
version, therefore, renders the text, "All things 
were done by him," and tho translators inform 
us, in a note, this means, that "all things in the 
Christian dispensation were done by Christ, that 
is, by his authority." But what shall we say to 
this bold assertion, that yivofiat is never used with 
reference to creative acts in the New Testament, 
when the following passages may be adduced in 
refutation? Ileb. iv. 3: "Although the works 
were finished from tho foundation of the world." 
Heb. xi. 3 : "So that things which are soon wore 
not made of things that do appear." James iii. 



292 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



9: "Men "which are made after the similitude 
of God." In all these passages, and in some 
places of the Septuagint also, that very word is 
used which, they tell us, never expresses, in 
Scripture, the notion of creation. Even the same 
chapter, verse 10, gives an instance of the same 
use of the word : "He was in the world, and the 
world was made (e^/eveTo) by him." For this, 
of course, they have a criticism ; but the manner 
in which this passage, so directly in refutation 
of their assertion, is disposed of in their "Im- 
proved Version," is a striking confirmation of 
the entire impossibility of accommodating Scrip- 
ture to their system. " The world was made by 
him," says the evangelist. "The world was 
enlightened by him," says the Socinian trans- 
lators, without the slightest authority, and in 
entire contradiction to the scope of the passage. 
Why did they not render the word as in the pre- 
ceding verse, "The world was done by him?" 
which, in point of fact, makes no difference in 
the sense, when rightly considered. The doing, 
ascribed to the Eternal "Word, is of a specific cha- 
racter — doing in the sense of framing, making, or ; 
creating (navra) "all things." 

The Socinians have not, however, fully satisfied ; 
themselves with this notable criticism in their 
"Improved Version;" and some of them, there- ! 
fore, render "all things were made by him," i 
"all things were made for him." But these 
criticisms cannot stand together. If the verb 
yivofiat is to be deprived of the import of creation, 
then it is impossible to retain the rendering of 
ii all things were made for him," since his own 
acts of ordering the Christian dispensation and | 
"enlightening" the world could not be "for: 
him," but must have been done "fo/him." If, 
on the contrary, they will have it that all things ] 
were done for him, then ylvofiai must be allowed I 
to import creation, or their production by the 
omnipotence of God. Both criticisms they cannot 
hold, and thus they confess that one destroys 
the other. Their rendering of dt' avrov cannot, 
however, be supported ; for 6ia, with a genitive, 
denotes not the final, but the efficient cause. 1 The 
introduction to St. John's Gospel may, there- 
fore, be considered as an inexpugnable proof 
that Deity, in its highest, and in no secondary 
or subordinate sense, is ascribed to our Saviour, 
under his title God — "and the Word was God." 
Nor in any other than the highest sense of the 
term God can the confession of Thomas, John 
xx. 28, be understood: "And Thomas answered 
and said unto him, My Lord and my God." The 

l So &L& is used throughout St. John's Gospel; and in 
Ileb. ii. 10, it is said of the Father, <V ov Tu izavra, «by 
whom are all things." So also Rom. xi. 36 : " Of him. and 
through him, (&' o.vtox\) and to him are all things." 



[PART II. 

Socinian version, in its note on this passage, in- 
timates that it may be considered not as a con- 
fession, but as an exclamation, "My Lord! and 
my God!" thereby choosing to put profane, or, 
at least, vulgar language into the mouth of this 
apostle, of which degradation we have certainly 
no example in the narration of the evangelists. 
Michaelis has justly observed that if Thomas had 
spoken German, (he might have added English, 
French, or Italian.) it might have been contended 
with some plausibility that "My Lord and my 
God" was only an irreverent ejaculation; but 
that Jewish astonishment was thus expressed is 
wholly without proof or support. Add to this, 
that the words are introduced with elnev avru, 
said to him, that is, to Christ : a mere ejacula- 
tion, such as that here supposed, is rather an 
appeal to Heaven. Our Saviour's reply makes 
it absolutely certain that the words of Thomas, 
though they are in the form of an exclamation, 
amount to a confession of faith, and were equiva- 
lent to a direct assertion of our Saviour's Divinity. 
Christ commends Thomas's acknowledgment, while 
he condemns the tardiness with which it is made; 
but to what did this acknowledgment amount? 
That Christ was Lord and God. (Middletox.) 

In Titus ii. 13, "Looking for that blessed 
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great 
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," our Lord is 
not only called God, but the great God, which 
marks the sense in which the term is used by the 
apostle, and gives unequivocal evidence of his 
opinions on the subject of Christ's Divinity. 
Socinian and Arian interpreters tell us, that 
"the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" 
are two persons, and therefore refer the title 
"great God" to the Father. The Socinian ver- 
sion accordingly renders the text, "the glorious 
appearance of the great God and of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ." To this interpretation there are 
satisfactory answers. Dr. Whitby observes : — 

"Here it deserveth to be noted, that it is 
highly probable that Jesus Christ is styled the 
great God, 1. Because, in the original, the article 
is prefixed only before the great God, and there- 
fore seems to require this construction, the ap- 
pearance of Jesus Christ, the great God and our 
Saviour. 2. Because, as God the Father is not 
said properly to appear, so the word errLddvEia 
never occurs in the New Testament, but when it 
is applied to Jesus Christ and to some coming of 
his ; the places in which it is to be found being 
only these, 2 Thess. ii. 8 : 1 Tim. vi. 14 : 2 Tim. 
i. 10, and iv. 1, 8. 3. Because Christ is em- 
phatically styled 'our hope,'' 'the hope of glory :' 
Col. i. 23 : 1 Tim. i. 1. And lastly, because not 
only all the ancient commentators on the place 
do so interpret this text, but the anti-Xicene 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



293 



fathers also: Hippolytus speaking of the ap- 
pearance of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ ; 
and Clemens of Alexandria proving Christ to he 
both God and man, our Creator, and the author 
of all our good things, from these very words of 
St. Paul." — Exposition. 

Independent of the criticism which rests upon 
the absence of the article, it is sufficient to esta- 
blish the claim of our Saviour to the title of "the 
great God" in this passage, that hiutyaveia, "the 
appearing," is never, in the New Testament, 
spoken of the Father, but of the Son only ; but, 
since the time of this critic, the doctrine of the 
Greek article has undergone ample and acute 
investigation, and has placed new guards around 
this and some other passages of similar construc- 
tion against the perversions of heresy. It has, 
by these investigations, been established that the 
Greek idiom forbids Qeov and aurijpog to be under- 
stood except of the same person ; and Mr. Gran- 
ville Sharp, therefore, translates the text, "ex- 
pecting the blessed hope and appearance of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ:" eirKpavecav 
ttjc dotjvc tov [izyakov Qeov nai ourrjpoc tjjxuv 'Itjoov 

XpiOTOV. 

" This interpretation depends upon the rule or 
canon brought forward into notice not many 
years ago by Mr. Granville Sharp. It excited a 
controversy, and Unitarians either treated it with 
ridicule, or denied its applicability to the New 
Testament. But after it had been shown by Mr. 
Wordsworth that most of the texts to which the 
rule applies were understood in the way Mr. 
Sharp explained them by the ancient fathers, who 
must surely have known the idiom of their native 
tongue; and after the doctrine of the Greek 
article had been investigated with so much pene- 
tration and learning by Dr. Middleton, all who 
have paid attention to the subject have acquiesced 
in the canon." — Holden's Testimonies. 

This important canon of criticism is thus stated 
by Dr. Middleton : 

"When two or more attributes, joined by a 
copulative or copulatives, are assumed of the 
same person or thing, before the first attributive 
the article is inserted, before the remaining ones 
it is omitted." The limitations of this rule may 
be seen in the learned author's work itself, with 
the reasons on which they rest. They are found 
in "names of substances, considered as substances, 
proper names, or names of abstract ideas;" and 
with such exceptions, and that of plurals occa- 
sionally, the rule uniformly holds. 1 

Anothor passage in which the appellation God 

l See Middloton on the Greek article; also, remarks at 
tho close of tin' Epistle to the Ephesians and tin- Epistle to 
Til us, in Dr. V. Clarko's Commentary; Wordsworth's Letters 
to Sharp; Dr. i'. Smith's Person of Christ. 



is given to Christ, in a connection which neces- 
sarily obliges us to understand it in its highest 
sense, is Heb. i. 8 : " But unto the Son he saith, 
Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever." The 
argument of the apostle here determines the 
sense in which he calls Jesus, the Son, "God," 
and the views he entertains of his nature. Angels 
and men are the only rational created beings in 
the universe which are mentioned by the sacred 
writers. The apostle argues that Christ is supe- 
rior even to angels : that they are but ministers, 
he a Sovereign, seated on a throne: that they 
worship him, and that he receives their worship : 
that they are creatures, but he Creator. " Thou, 
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation 
of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of 
thy hands;" and full of these ideas of supreme 
Divinity, he applies a passage to him out of the 
45th Psalm, which is there addressed to the 
Messiah, " Thy throne, God, is for ever and 
ever." 

The Socinian version renders the passage, 
"But to the Son he saith, God is thy throne for 
ever and ever;" and in this it follows Wakefield 
and some others. 

The first reason given to support this render- 
ing is, that 6 Qebg is the nominative case. But 
the nominative, both in common and in Attic 
Greek, is often used for the vocative. It is so 
used frequently by the LXX, and by the writers 
of the New Testament. The vocative form, 
indeed, very rarely occurs in either, the nomina- 
tive almost exclusively supplying its place ; and 
in this passage it was so taken by the Greek 
fathers. 2 The criticism is, therefore, groundless. 

The second is, that as the words are addressed 
to Solomon in the psalm from which they are 
quoted, they must be understood to declare that 
God was the support of his throne. But the 
opinion that the psalm was composed concerning 
Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter, 3 
has no foundation either in Scripture or in 
antiquity, and is, indeed, contradicted by both. 
On this subject Bishop Horsley remarks : — 

"The circumstances which are characteristic 
of the king, who is the hero of this poem, are 
every one of them utterly inapplicable to Solo- 
mon; insomuch, that not one of them can be 
ascribed to him without contradicting the histoi-y 
of his reign. The hero of this poem is a war- 
rior, who girds his sword upon his thigh ; ridea 
in pursuit of flying foes ; makes havoc among 
them with his sharp arrows; and reigns, at last. 

2 "Omnos (Patres) uno consensu 9eof hoc In \oco 
vocative acceperunt, prout In Psalmis frequente a LXX 
usurpatur, el alioqui tain ilia roost Qrtecis, aiticis prsssertim, 
nominandJ casum vocative sumere."— Bishop Bull, 

8 This notion appears to have originated with Culviu. 



294 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



by conquest, over his vanquished enemies. No"W 
Solomon was no warrior: he enjoyed a long 
reign of forty years of uninterrupted peace. 

"Another circumstance of distinction in the 
great personage celebrated by this psalm, is his 
love of righteousness and hatred of wickedness. 
The original expresses that he had set his heart 
upon righteousness, and bore an antipathy to 
wickedness. His love of righteousness and 
hatred of wickedness had been so much the 
ruling principles of his whole conduct, that, for 
this, he was advanced to a condition of the high- 
est bliss, and endless perpetuity was promised to 
his kingdom. The word we render 'righteous- 
ness,' in its strict and proper meaning, signifies 
'justice,' or the constant and perpetual observ- 
ance of the natural distinctions of right and 
wrong in civil society; and principally with 
respect to property in private persons, and, in a 
magistrate or sovereign, in the impartial exercise 
of judicial authority. But the word we render 
'wickedness,' denotes not only 'injustice,' but 
whatever is contrary to moral purity in the in- 
dulgence of the appetites of the individual, and 
whatever is contrary to a principle of true piety 
toward God. Now, the word 'righteousness' 
being here opposed to this wickedness, must 
certainly be taken as generally as the word to 
which it is opposed in a contrary signification. 
It must signify, therefore, not merely 'justice,' 
in the sense we have explained, but purity of 
private manners, and piety toward God. Now, 
Solomon was certainly, upon the whole, a good 
king, nor was he without piety ; but his love of 
righteousness, in the large sense in which we 
have shown the word is to be taken, and his anti- 
pathy to the contrary, fell very far short of what 
the psalmist ascribes to his great king, and pro- 
cured for him no such stability of his monarchy. 

"Another circumstance wholly inapplicable to 
Solomon is the numerous progeny of sons, the 
issue of the marriage, all of whom were to be made 
princes over all the earth. Solomon had but one 
son, that we read of, that ever came to be a king 
— his son and successor, Rehoboam ; and so far 
was he from being a prince over all the earth, 
that he was no sooner seated on the throne than 
he lost the greater part of his father's kingdom. 

" For, would it be said of him that his king- 
dom, which lasted only forty years, is eternal? 
It was not even eternal in his posterity. And, 
with respect to his loving righteousness and hating 
tcickedness, it but ill applies to one who in his old 
age became an encourager of idolatry through 
the influence of women. This psalm, therefore, 
is applicable only to the Christ. Further, Solo- 
mon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter being 
expressly condemned as contrary to the law, 



(1 Kings xi. 2,) to suppose that this psalm was 
composed in honor of that event is certainly an 
ill-founded imagination. Estius informs us that 
the rabbins, in their commentaries, aflirm that 
Psalm xlv. was written wholly concerning the 
Messiah. Accordingly, they translate the title 
of the psalm as we do, a Song of Loves; the 
LXX, 63t) v~ip rov dyairriTov, a song concerning 
the beloved ; Vulgate, pro dilecto : a title justly 
given to Messiah, whom God, by voices from . 
heaven, declared his beloved Son. Besides, as the 
word Maschil, which signifies for instruction, 
(LXX, etc cvveaiv, Vulgate, ad intellectum,) is 
inserted in the title, and as no mention is made 
in the psalm of Solomon, from an account of 
whose loves, as Pierce observes, the Jewish 
Church was not likely to gain much instruction, 
we are led to understand the psalm, not of Solo- 
mon, but of Messiah only." 

The interpretation "God is thy throne," is. 
moreover, monstrous, and derives no support 
from any parallel figurative or elliptical mode 
of expression in the sacred writings — God, the 
throne of a creature! And, finally, as stated 
by Middleton, had that been the sense of the 
passage, the language requires that it should 
have been written, dpovog gov 6 Qebc, not 6 dpovoc, 
[Doctrine of the Greek Article,) which, on the 
Socinian interpretation, is the predicate of the 
proposition. So futile are all these attempts to 
shake the evidence which this text gives to the 
absolute Godhead of our Saviour. 

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and 
hath given us an understanding, that we may know 
him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even 
in his Sox Jesus Christ. This is the true God axd 
eterxal life," 1 John v. 19, 20. Here our Saviour 
is called the true God and eternal life. The means 
by which this testimony is evaded is to interpret 
the clause, "him that is true," of the Father, 
and to refer the pronoun this, not to the nearest 
antecedent, "his Son Jesus Christ," but to the 
most remote, "him that is true." All, however, 
that is pretended by the Socinian critics on this 
passage is, not that this construction must, but 
that it may take place. Yet, even this feeble 
opposition to the received rendering cannot be 
maintained ; for, 1. To interpret the clause, 
"him that is true," of the Father, is entirely 
arbitrary; and the scope of the epistle, which 
was to prove that Jesus the Christ was the true 
Son of God, and, therefore, Divine, against those 
who denied his Divinity, and that "he had come 
in the flesh," in opposition to the heretics who 
denied his humanity, 1 obliges us to refer that 

1 These were the Doceta?, who taught that our Lord was a 
man in appearance only, and suffered and died in appear- 
ance only. On the contrary, the Cerinthians and others 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



295 



phrase to the Son, and not to the Father. 2. If 
it could be established that the Father was 
intended by "him that is true," it would be 
contrary to grammatical usage to refer the pro- 
noun this is the "true God and eternal life," to 
the remote antecedent, without obvious and in- 
disputable necessity. 

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as con- 
cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, 
God blessed for ever." Rom. ix. 5. 

With respect to this text, it is to be noted, — 

1. That it continues an enumeration of the 
particular privileges of the Jewish nation which 
are mentioned in the preceding verses, and the 
apostle adds, "whose are the fathers," the patri- 
archs, and prophets, and of whom "the Christ 
came." 

2. That he throws in a clause of limitation 
with respect to the coming of Christ, "according to 
the flesh," which clearly states that it was only 
according to the flesh, the humanity of Christ, 
that he descended from the Jewish nation, and, 
at the same time, intimates that he was more 
than flesh, or mere human nature. 

3. The sentence does not end here : the apostle 
adds, "who is over all, God blessed for ever;" a 
relative expression which evidently refers to the 
antecedent Christ; and thus we have an antithe- 
sis, which shows the reason why the apostle 
introduced the limiting clause "according to the 
flesh ;" and explains why Christ, in one respect, 
did descend from the Jews ; and in another, that 
this could not be affirmed of him : he was "God 
over all," and, therefore, only " according to the 
flesh" could he be of human descent. 

4. That this completes the apostle's purpose to 
magnify the privileges of his nation : after enu- 
merating many others, he crowns the whole by 
declaring that "God over all," when he became 
incarnate for the sake of human salvation, took 
a body of the seed of Abraham. 

Criticism has, of course, endeavored, if pos- 
sible, to weaken the argument drawn from this 
lofty and impregnable passage ; but it is of such 
a kind as greatly to confirm the truth. For, in 
the first place, various readings of manuscripts 
cannot here be resorted to for rendering the 
sense dubious ; and all the ancient versions 
support the present reading. It has, indeed, 
been alleged, on the authority of Grasinus, that 



believed that the Son of God was united to tbo human 
mature at hie baptism, departed from it before his passion, 
and was reunited to it alter his resurrection. According 
|.> tin' I'm iincr, Christ was man in appearance only: neeord- 
Ing to the latter, ho was the Son of God at the time of bis 
m ami death in appearance only. We see, then, (ho 
reason why St.John, who writes against these em 
often calls Chris! "him thai is true," true Cod and truo 
man, not either in appearance only. 



though the word "God" is found in all our 
present copies, it was wanting in those of Cyprian, 
Hilary, and Chrysostom. But this has been 
abundantly proved to be an error, that word 
being found in the manuscripts and best editions 
of Cyprian and Hilary, and even St. Chrysostom 
affords decisive testimony to the common read- 
ing: in short, "the word God, in this text, is 
found in every known manuscript of this epistle, 
in every ancient version extant, and in every father 
who has had occasion to quote the passage : so 
that, in truth, there can scarcely be instanced a 
text in the New Testament in which all the 
ancient authorities more satisfactorily agree." 
(Magee on Atonement. See also Nares on the New 
Version.) The only method of dealing with this 
passage left to Arians and Socinians was, there- 
fore, to attempt to obtain a different sense from 
it by shifting the punctuation. By this device 
some read, "and of whom is the Christ, accord- 
ing to the flesh. God, who is over all, be blessed 
for ever." Others, "and of whom is the Christ, 
according to the flesh, who is over all. Blessed 
be God for ever." A critic of their own, 
Mr. Wakefield, whose authority they acknowledge 
to be very great, may, however, here be turned 
against them. Both these constructions, he 
acknowledges, appear so awkward, so abrupt, so 
incoherent, that he never could be brought to 
relish them in the least degree ; (Inquiry into 
Opinions, etc. ;) and Dr. S. Clarke, who was well 
disposed to evade this decisive passage, acknow- 
ledges that the common reading is the most 
obvious. But, independent of the authority of 
critics, there are several direct and fatal objec- 
tions to this altered punctuation. It leaves the 
limiting clause, "according to the flesh," wholly 
unaccounted for ; for no possible reason can be 
given for that limitation on the Socinian scheme. 
If the apostle had regarded Christ simply as a 
man, he could have come in no other way than 
" according to the flesh ;" nor is this relieved at 
all by rendering the phrase, as in their "Im- 
proved Version," by "natural descent," for a 
mere man could only appear among men by 
"natural descent." Either, therefore, the clause 
is a totally unmeaning and an impertinent paren- 
thesis, or it has respect to the natural antithesis 
which follows — his supreme Divinity, as "God 
over all." Thus the scopo of the passage pro- 
hibits this license of punctuation. To the latter 
clause being considered as a doxology to God the 
Father, there is an insuperable, critical difficulty. 
Dr. Middleton observes : — 

"It has been deemed a safer expedient to 
attempt a construction different from the received 
one, by making the whole or part of the clause 
to be merely a doxology in praise of tho Father. 



296 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



so that the rendering mil be either ' God, who is 
over all, be blessed for ever,' or, beginning at 
Qsog, 'God be blessed for ever.' These interpre- 
tations also have their difficulties ; for thus 
Ei/.oynrbg will properly -want the article. On the 
first, however, of these constructions, it is to be 
observed that in all the doxologies, both of the 
LXX. and of the New Testament, in which 
eiAoyrjTbg is used, it is placed at the beginning 
of the sentence : in the Xew Testament there are 
five instances, all conspiring to prove this usage, 
and in the LXX. about forty. The same arrange- 
ment is observed in the formula of cursing, in 
which ETTLnarupa-og always precedes the mention 
of the person cursed. The reading then would, 
on this construction, rather have been, Ev/.oyrjrbg 
6 C)v knl Tzdvruv Qsbg eig rovg aluvag. Against 
the other supposed doxology the objection is still 
stronger, since that would require us not only to 
transpose ev/.oynrbg, but to read 'O Qebc. Ac- 
cordingly, in all instances where a doxology is 
meant, we find £v?.oynrbg 6 Qebg." — Doctrine of 
the Greek Article. 

Whitby also remarks : 

" The words will not admit of that interpunc- 
tion and interpretation of Erasmus, which will 
do any service to the Arians or Socinians, namely, 
that a colon must be put after the words Kara 
capua, after the flesh ; and the words following 
must be an ecphonema, and grateful exclamation 
for the blessings conferred upon the Jews : thus, 
God, who is over all, be blessed for ever. For this 
exposition is so harsh, and without any like 
example in the whole Xew Testament, that as 
none of the orthodox ever thought upon it, so I 
find not that it ever came into the head of any 
Arian. Socinus himself rejects it for this very 
good reason, that Qebc EvAoynrbg, God be blessed, 
is an unusual and unnatural construction; for 
wherever else these words signify blessed be God, 
£i/.o;. tjtoc is put before God, as Luke i. 68, 2 Cor. 
i. 3, Eph. i. 3, 1 Peter i. 3 ; and Bebg hath an 
article prefixed to it, nor are they ever imme- 
diately joined together otherwise. The phrase 
occurs twenty times in the Old Testament, but in 
every place ev/.oynrbg goes before, and the article 
is annexed to the word God, which is a demon- 
stration that this is a perversion of the sense of 
the apostle's words." 

The critical discussion of this text is further 
pursued by the writers just quoted: by Dr. Xares, 
in his Remarks : Mr. Wardlaw, in his Discourses : 
Archbishop Magee, and others ; and we may 
confidently say of it, with Doddridge, that it is 
"a memorable text, and contains a proof of 
Christ's proper Deity, which the opposers of that 
doctrine have never been able, nor will ever be 
able to answer." So it was considered and 



quoted "by the fathers," says Whitby, "from 

the beginning; and," continues the same com- 

i mentator, "if these words are spoken by the 

Spirit of God concerning Christ, the arguments 

hence to prove him truly and properly God are 

invincible ; for, first, 6 Qebc exl ttuvtuv, God over 

, all, is the periphrasis by which all the heathen 

'' philosophers did usually represent the supreme 

God ; and so is God the Father described both in 

■ the Old and Xew Testament, as 6 ettI ttuvtcov, he 
that is over all, Eph. iv. 6. Secondly, this is the 

'■ constant epithet and periphrasis of the great God 
in the Old Testament, that he is eHo^r-bc efc ~ov 
aicJva, God blessed for evermore, 1 Chron. xvi. 36, 
Psalm xli. 13, and lxxxix. 52 ; and also in the 
Xew, where he is styled the God 6c eotlv Ev/.oyr/rbg 
Elg rovg aluvag, tcho is blessed for evermore." 

Xumerous other passages might be cited where 
Christ is called "God:" these only have been 
selected, not merely because the proof does not 
rest upon the number of scriptural testimonies, 
but upon their explicitness ; but also because 

: they all associate the term God, as applied to our 

■ Saviour, with other titles, or with circumstances, 
which demonstrate most fully that that term was 
used by the inspired penmen in its highest sense 
of true and proper Deity when they applied it to 
Christ. Thus we have seen it associated with 
Jehovah ; with Lord, the Xew Testament render- 
ing of that ineffable name ; with acts of creative 
energy, as in the introduction to the Gospel of 
St. John ; with the supreme dominion and per- 
petual stability of the throne of the Son, in the 
first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In 
the Epistle to Titus, he is called "the great 
God:" in 1 John, "the true God," and the giver 
of "eternal life;" and in the last text exa- 
mined, his twofold nature is distinguished — man, 
"according to the flesh," and in his higher 
nature, God, "God over all, blessed for ever- 
more." These passages stand in full refutation 
of both the Arian and Socinian heresies. In 
opposition to the latter, they prove our Saviour 
to be more than man, for they assert him to be 
God ; and in opposition to the former, they prove 
that he is God, not in an inferior sense, but "the 
great God," "the true God," and "God over all, 
blessed for evermore." 

I pass over, for the sake of greater brevity, 
other titles more rarely ascribed to our Saviour, 
such as the "Lord or Glory," 1 Cor. ii. 8: 
"King of kings and Lord of lords;" on which 
it would be easy to argue that their import falls 
nothing short of absolute Divinity. A few 
remarks on three other titles of our Lord, of 
more frequent occurrence, may close this branch 
of the argument. These are, "King of Israel," 
"Son of" God," and "The Word." The first 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



297 



bears evident allusion to the preexistence of 
Christ, and to his sovereignty over Israel under 
the law. Now, it has been already established 
that the Jehovah, "the King of the Jews," "the 
Holy One of Israel our King," "the King, the 
Lord of Hosts," of the Old Testament, is not the 
Father; but another Divine person, who, in the 
New Testament, is affirmed to have been Jesus 
Christ. This being the view of the sacred writers 
of the evangelical dispensation, it is clear that 
they could not use the appellation "The King 
of Israel," in a lower sense than that in which 
it stands in the Old Testament; and there, indis- 
putably, even by the confession of opponents, it 
is collocated with titles, and attributes, and works 
which unequivocally mark a Divine character. 
It is with clear reference to this his peculiar 
property in the Jewish people, that St. John says, 
"He came unto his own, and his own received 
him not;" a declaration which is scarcely sense, 
if Judea was in no higher a meaning his own 
country 1 than it was the country of any other 
person who happened to be born there ; for it is 
surely a strange method of expressing the simple 
fact that he was born a Jew, (were nothing more 
intended,) to say that he came into his own 
country, for this every person does at his birth, 
wherever he is born. Nor is it any aggravation 
of the guilt of the Jews that they rejected 
merely a countryman, since that circumstance 
gave him no greater claim than that of any other 
Jew to be received as the Messiah. The force 
of the remark lies in this, that whereas the pro- 
phets had declared that "the King of Israel," 
"the Lord of hosts," "Jehovah," should become 
incarnate, and visit his own people ; and that 
Jesus had given sufficient evidence that he was 
that predicted and expected personage ; yet the 
Jews, "his own people" and inheritance, rejected 
him. The same notion is conveyed in our Lord's 
parable, when the Jews are made to say, "This is 
the heir," he in whom the right is vested: "let 
us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours." 2 
It is sufficient, however, here to show that the 
title "King of Israel" was understood, by the 
Jews, to imply Divinity. Nathanael exclaims, 
"Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the 
King of Israel." This was said upon such a 
proof of his Mcssiahship as, from his acquaint- 
ance with some matter private to Nathanael 
alone when he was "under the fi£ tree," was a 



1 " Ho came into his own country, and his countrymen 
jBSeived him not." — Capp's Version. 

2 Vcnit ;ul Bua, et sni lKni receperunt cum, id est, venit 
ml possessionem suam, et qui possessionia lpsiua erant, eum 
non receporunt: quod explicatur, Matt. \.\i., ubi Alius 
dicitur missus ad ecclosiam Judaicara ,,V K?in()ov6uoc etc 

TjpovOfJuav avTov.—^^ov. dc Dim, in loc. 



full demonstration of omniscience: a circumstance 
which also determines the Divine import of "Son 
of God," the title which is here connected with 
it. Both were certainly understood by Nathanael 
to imply an assumption of Godhead. 

" 'As our Saviour hung upon the cross,' says 
St. Matthew, 'they that passed by reviled him, 
wagging their heads and saying, Thou that 
destroyest the temple and buildest it in three 
days, save thyself: if thou be the Son of God, 
come down from the cross. Likewise also the 
chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and 
elders, said, He saved others : himself he cannot 
save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now 
come down from the cross, and we will believe 
him. He trusted in God: let him deliver him 
now, if he will have him ; for he said, I am the 
Son of God. The thieves also which were cruci- 
fied with him, cast the same in his teeth. [One 
of them saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself 
and us ; but the other said unto Jesus, Lord, 
remember me, when thou comest into thy king- 
dom.^ [And the soldiers also mocked him, 
coming to him, and offering him vinegar, and 
saying, If thou be the King of the Jews, save 
thyself.] Now when the centurion, and they 
that were with him watching Jesus, saw the 
earthquake, and those things that were done, 
they feared greatly, saying, [Certainly this was 
a righteous man,~\ Truly this was the Son of God.' 
Here we see the Jews, and the Gentiles resident 
among them, uniting to speak in a language that 
stamps Divinity upon the title used by them 
both. The Jewish passengers upon the road over 
the top of Calvary, stood still near the cross of 
our Saviour, insultingly to nod at him, to re- 
proach him with his assumed appellative of the 
Son of God, and to challenge him to an exertion 
of that Divinity which both he and they affixed 
to it, by coming down from the cross, and saving 
himself from death. The elders, the scribes, and 
the chief priests equally insulted him with the 
same assumption, and equally challenged him to 
the same exertion, calling upon him now to show 
he was truly the King of Israel, or the Lord 
and Sovereign of their nation in all ages, by 
putting forth the power of his Divine royalty, 
and coming down from the cross." — Whitaker's 
Origin of Arianism. 

Such is the testimony of the Jews to the sense 
in which our Saviour applied these titles to him- 
self. The title "Son of God" demands, however, 
a larger consideration, various attempts having 
been made to restrain its significance, in direot 
opposition to this testimony, to the mere human- 
ity of our Saviour, and to rost its application 
upon his miraculous conception. 

It is true that this notion is held by some who 



293 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART 



hesitate not to acknowledge that Jesus Chr: ; : is 
a Divine person: but. by denying bis Deity as 
'•the Sox or God," they both depart from the 
faith of the Church of Christ in the earliest 
times, and give up to the Socinians the whole 
argument for the Divinity of Christ which is 
founded upon that eminent appellation. On this 
account, so frequent and indeed so general a title 
of our Lord deserves to be more particularly 
considered, that the foundation which it lays for 
the demonstration of the Divinity of Christ may 
not be unthinkingly relinquished; and that a 
door of error, which has been unconsciously 
opened by the vague reasonings of men in other 
resj :-:•:= orthodox, may be closed by the autho- 
rity ::' holy writ. 

That the title, "Son or God,'' was applied to 
Christ, is a fact. His disciples, occasionally 
before and frequently after his resurrection, give 
him this appellation: he assumes it himself: and 
:: was indignantly denied to him by the Jews. 
who, by that very denial, acknowledge that it 
was claimed in its highest sense by him, and by 
his disciples for him. The question, therefore, 
is, what this title imported. 

Those who think that it was assumed by Christ, 
and given to him by his disciples, because of his 
miraculous conception, are obviously in error. 
Our Lord, when he adopts the appellation, never 
di _ : - his miraculous birth as a proof of his 
Sonship : on the contrary, this is a subject on 
which he preserves a total silence, and the Jews 
were left to consider him as "the son of Jo- 
seph:" and to argue from his being born at 
"Xazareth," as they supposed, that he could 
not be the Messiah : so ignorant were they of 
the circumstances of his birth, and, therefore, 
of the manner of his conception. 

Again, our Lord calls God his Father, and 
grounds the proof of it upon his rnirachs. The 
Jew;, too, clearly conceived that, in making this 
profession of Sonship with reference to God. he 
assumed a Divine character, and made himself 
"equal with God." They therefore took up 
stones to stone him. In that important argu- 
ment between our Lord and the Jews, in which 
his great object was to establish the point that, 
in a peculiar sense, God was his Father, there is 
no reference at all to the miraculous conception. 
On the contrary, the title "Son of God" is as- 
sumed by Christ on a ground totally different : 
and it is disputed by the Jews, not by their 
questioning or denying the fact that he was mi- 
raculously conceived, but on the assumed impos- 
sibility that he, being a man, should be egtud to 
. which they affirmed that title to import, 
did the disciples themselves give him this 
title with reference to his conception by the 



Holy Ghost. Certain it is that Xathanael did 
not know the circumstances of his birth : for he 
was announced to him by Philip as Jesus of 
■r.ii. -the son of Joseph;" and he asks, 
"Can any good thing come out of Xazar: 
He did not know, therefore, but that Jesu- wi ; 
the son of Joseph : he knew nothing of his be- 
ing born at Bethlehem: and yet he confesses 
him to be " the Sox or God, and the Ktva of 
Israel." 

It may also be observed that, in the celebrated 
confession of Peter, --Thou art the Christ, the 
Son of the living God," there is no reference 
at all to the miraculous conception: a fact at 
that time, probably, not known even to the apos- 
tles, and one of the things which Mary kept and 
pondered in her heart till the Spirit was given, 
and the full revelation of Christ was made to the 
apostles. But, even if the miraculous concep- 
tion were known to St. Peter, it is clear, from 
the answer of our Lord to him, that it formed 
no part of the ground on which he confessed 
"the Son of Man" to be the "Son of God;" 
for our Lord replies, "Blessed art thou, Simon 
na, for flesh and blood hath not revealed 
Hkm unto thee, but my Father which is in hea- 
ven/' He had been specially taught this doc- 
trine of the Sonship of Christ by God, an un- 
necessary thing, certainly, if the miraculous . in- 
ception had been the only ground of that Son- 
ship : for the evidence of that fact might have 
been collected from Christ and the virgin mother, 
and there was no apparent necessity of a revela- 
tion from the Father so particular, a teach:: 
specif."-, as that mentioned in our Lord's reply, 
and which is given as an instance of the peculiar 
" blessedness " of Simon Barjona, 

This ground, therefore, not being tenable, it 
has been urged that " Son of God" was simply 
an appellation of Messiah, and was so used 
among the Jews ; in other words, that it is an 
designation, and not a personal one. 
Against this, however, the evangelic history af- 
fords decisive proof. That the Messiah was to 
be the Jehovah of the Old Testament is plain, 
from the tests adduced in a former chapter, and 
this, therefore, is to be considered the faith of 
the ancient Jewish Churqh. It is, however, cer- 
tain that at the period of our Lord's advent, 
and for many years previously, the learned 
among the Jews had mingled much of the phi- 
losophy which they had learned from the heathen 
schools with their theological speculation; and 
that their writings present often a singular com- 
pound of crude metaphysical notions, alleg 
cabalistic mysteries, and, occasionally, great and 
sublime truths. The age of our Lord was an 
age of great religious corruption and error. The 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OE CHRISTIANITY, 



299 



Sadducees were materialists and skeptics ; and 
the Pharisees had long cultivated the opinion 
that the Messiah was to be a temporal monarch, 
a notion which served to vitiate their concep- 
tions of his character and office, and to darken 
all the prophecies. Two things, however, amidst 
all this confusion of opinions, and this preva- 
lence of great errors, appear exceedingly clear 
from the evangelists : 1. That the Jews recog- 
nized the existence of such a being as the " Son 
of God;" and that for any person to profess to 
be the Son of God, in this peculiar sense, was to 
commit blasphemy. 2. That for a person to 
profess to be the Messiah simply was not con- 
sidered blasphemy, and did not exasperate the 
Jews to take up stones to stone the offender. 
Our Lord certainly professed to be the Messiah : 
many of the Jews, also, at different times, be- 
lieved on him as such; and yet, as appears from 
St. John's Gospel, these same Jews who ''be- 
lieved" on him as Messiah, were not only "of- 
fended," but took up stones to stone him as a 
blasphemer when he declared himself to be the 
"Son of God," and that God was his "proper 
Father." It follows from these facts that the 
Jews of our Lord's times, generally, having 
been perverted from the faith of their ancestors, 
did not expect the second person of the Trinity, 
"the Son of God," the Divine Memra, or Logos, 
to be the Messiah. Others, indeed, had a dim 
and uninfluential apprehension of this truth : 
there were some who indulged various other specu- 
lations on the subject ; but the true doctrine was 
only retained among the faithful few, as Simeon, 
who explicitly ascribes Divinity to the Messiah, 
whom he held in his arms; Nathanael, who con- 
nects "Son op God and King or Israel" to- 
gether, one the designation of the Divine nature, 
the other of the office of Messiah ; and the apos- 
tles of our Lord, whose minds were gradually 
opened to this mystery of faith, and brought off 
from the vulgar notion of the civil character and 
mere human nature and human work of Messiah, 
by the inspiration and teaching of God — "flesh 
and blood did not reveal it to them, but the 
Father." 

"We cannot, therefore, account for the uso of 
the title " Son op God," among the Jews of our 
Lord's time, whether by his disciples or his ene- 
mies, by considering it as synonymous with 
"Messiah." The Jews regarded the former as 
necessarily involving a claim to Divinity, but not 
the Latter; and the disciples did not conceivo 
that they fully confessed their Master by calling 
him the Messiah, Avithout adding to it his higher 
personal designation. "Thou art the Christ," 
Bays St. Peter j but he adds, "tup. Son op the 
Living: God:" just as Nathanael, under tho in- 



fluence of a recent proof of his omniscience, 
and, consequently, of his Divinity, salutes him, 
first as "Son op God," and then as Messiah, 
"King op Israel." 

"We are to seek for the origin of the title " The 
Son op God," in the Scriptures of the Old Tes- 
tament, where a Divine Son is spoken of, in 
passages, some of which have reference to him 
as Messiah also, and in others which have no 
such reference. In both, however, we shall find 
that it was a personal designation: a name of 
revelation, not of office: that it was essential in 
him to be a Son, and accidental only that he was 
the Messiah : that he was the first by nature, 
the second by appointment ; and that, in constant 
association with the name of "Son," as given to 
him alone, and in a sense which shuts out all 
creatures, however exalted, are found ideas and 
circumstances of full and absolute Divinity. 

Under the designation "Son," Son of God, he 
is introduced in the second Psalm: "The Lord 
hath said unto me, Thou art my Son : this day 
have I begotten thee." From apostolic authority 
we know that the "Son," here introduced as 
speaking, is Christ; this application to him be- 
ing explicitly made at least twice in the New 
Testament. Now, if we should allow, with 
some, that "this day" here spoken of is the day 
of Christ's resurrection, and should interpret 
his being "begotten" of the Father, of the act 
itself of raising him from the dead, it is clear 
that the miraculous conception of Christ is not, 
in this passage, laid down as the ground of his 
Sonship. The reference is clearly made to ano- 
ther transaction, namely, his resurrection. So 
far this passage, thus interpreted, furnishes an 
instance in which the Messiah is called " The 
Son of God," on some ground entirely independ- 
ent of the mode of his incarnation. But he is 
so frequently called the Son where there is no 
reference even to his resurrection, that this can- 
not be considered as the ground of that relation; 
and, indeed, the point is sufficiently settled by 
St. Paul, who, in his Epistle to the Romans, tells 
us that the resurrection of Christ was the decla- 
ration of -his Sonship, not the ground of it — 
"declared to be the Son of God with power, by 
the resurrection from the dead." We perceive, 
too, from the Psalm, that the mind of the in- 
spired writer is filled with ideas of his Divinity, 
of his claims, and of his works as God. This 
Son the nations of the earth are called to "kiss, 
lest he be angry, and they perish from the way ;" 
and every one is pronounced blessed who "put- 
teth his trust in him:" a declaration of unequi- 
vocal Divinity, because found in a book -which 
pronounces every man cursed "who trusteth in 
man, and inaketh flesh his arm." 



300 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



"It is obvious, at first view, that the high 
titles and honors ascribed in this Psalm to the 
extraordinary person who is the chief subject of 
it, far transcend any thing that is ascribed in 
Scripture to any mere creature ; but if the 
Psalm be inquired into more narrowly, and com- 
pared with parallel prophecies : if it be duly 
considered, that not only is the extraordinary 
person here spoken of called the Son of God, but 
that title is so ascribed to him as to imply that 
it belongs to him in a manner that is absolutely 
singular, and peculiar to himself, seeing he is 
said to be begotten of God, (verse 7,) and is 
called by way of eminence the Son, (verse 12:) 
that the danger of provoking him to anger is 
spoken of in so very different a manner from 
what the Scripture uses in speaking of the anger 
of any mere creature: 'Kiss the Son, lest he 
be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his 
wrath is kindled but a little:' that when the 
kings and judges of the earth are commanded to 
serve God with fear, they are, at the same time, 
commanded to kiss the Son, which, in those 
times and places, was frequently an expression 
of adoration ; and particularly that whereas 
other scriptures contain awful and just threaten- 
ings against those who trust in any mere man, 
the Psalmist expressly calls them blessed who 
trust in the Son here spoken of: all these things 
taken together, and compared with the other 
prophecies, make up a character of Divinity: 
as, on the other hand, when it is said that God 
would set this his Son as his King on his holy 
hill of Zion, (verse 6,) these and various other 
expressions in this Psalm contain characters of 
the subordination which was to be appropriated 
to that Divine person who was to be incarnate." 
— Maclaurin's Essay on the Prophecies. 

Neither the miraculous conception of Christ, 
nor yet his resurrection from the dead, is, there- 
fore, the foundation of his being called the Son 
of God in this Psalm. Not the first, for there is 
no allusion to it : not the second, for he was de- 
clared from heaven to be the "beloved Son" of 
the Father at his very entrance upon his minis- 
try, and, consequently, before the resurrection; 
and, also, because the very apostle who applies 
the prediction to the resurrection of Christ ex- 
plicitly states, that even that was a declaration 
of an antecedent Sonship. It is also to be 
noted that, in the first chapter of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, St. Paul institutes an argument 
upon this very passage in the second Psalm, to 
prove the superiority of Christ to the angels. 
"For unto which of the angels said he at any 
time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee ?" " The force of this argument lies in the 
expression 'begotten,' importing that the person 



[PART II. 

addressed is the Son of God, not by creation, but 
by generation. Christ's preeminence over the 
angels is here stated to consist in this, that 
whereas they were created, he is begotten; and 
the apostle's reasoning is fallacious unless this 
expression intimates a proper and peculiar filia- 
tion." 1 " He hath obtained," says Bishop Hall, 
"a more excellent name than the angels, namely, 
to be called and to be the Son of God, not by 
grace and adoption, but by nature and commu- 
nication of essence." This argument from 
Christ's superiority to all creatures, even the 
most exalted, shows the sentiment of St. Paul 
as to Divinity being implied in the title Son, 
given to the Messiah in the second Psalm. In 
this several of the ancient Jewish commentators 
agree with him; and here we see one of the 
sources from which the Jews derived their no- 
tion of the existence of a Divine Son of God. 

Though the above argument stands independ- 
ent of the interpretations which have been given 
to the clause "this day have I begotten thee," 
the following passage from Witsius, in some parts 
of its argument, has great weight: — 

"But we cannot so easily concede to our 
adversaries that, by the generation of Christ, 
mentioned in the second Psalm, his resurrection 
from the dead is intended, and that by this day 
we are to understand the day on which God, 
having raised him from the dead, appointed him 
the King of his Church. For, 1. To beget signi- 
fies nowhere in the sacred volume to rescue from 
death ; and we are not at liberty to coin new 
significations of words. 2. Though, possibly, it 
were used in that metaphorical acceptation, 
(which, however, is not yet proved,) it cannot be 
understood in this passage in any other than its 
proper sense. It is here adduced as a reason for 
which Christ is called the Son of God. Now 
Christ is the Son of God, not figuratively, but 
properly; for the Father is called his proper 
Father, and he himself is denominated the proper 
Son of the Father, by which designation he is 
distinguished from those who are his sons in a 
metaphorical sense. 3. These words are spoken 
to Christ with a certain emphasis, with which 
they would not have been addressed to any of 
the angels, much less to any of mankind ; but 
if they meant nothing more than the raising of 
him from the dead, they would attribute nothing 
to Christ which he doth not possess in common 
with many others, who, in like manner, are 
raised up by the power of God to glory and an 
everlasting kingdom. 4. Christ raised himself 

l Holden's Testimonies. " Non dicit Deus adopfavi, sed 
generavi te : quod communicationem ejusdem essentioe et 
naturae divince siguificat, modo tamen prorsus ineffabilc." 

— MlCHAELIS. 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



301 



from the dead, too, by his own power; from 
which it would follow, according to this interpre- 
tation, that he begat himself, and that he is his 
own son. 5. It is not true, in fine, that Christ 
was not begotten of the Father, nor called his 
Son, till that very day on which he was raised 
from the dead ; for, as is abundantly manifest 
from the Gospel history, he often, when yet 
alive, professed himself the Son of God, and was 
often acknowledged as such. 6. To-day refers 
to time, when human concerns are in question ; 
but this expression, when applied to Divine 
things, must be understood in a sense suitable to 
the majesty of the Godhead. And if any word 
may be transferred from time to denote eternity, 
which is the complete and perfect possession, at 
once, of an interminable life, what can be better 
adapted to express its unsuccessive duration than 
the term to-day ? Nor can our adversaries derive 
any support to their cause from the words of 
Paul, Acts xiii. 32, 33 : 'And we declare unto 
you glad tidings, how that the promise which 
was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled 
the same unto us, their children, in that he hath 
raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second 
Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee.' For, 1. Paul doth not here prove the 
resurrection of Jesus from the dead, from this 
expression in the second Psalm, (which, though 
it describes him who is raised again, doth not 
prove his resurrection,) but from Isaiah lv. 3, 
and Psalm xvi. 10; while he adds, (verses 34 
and 35,) 'And as concerning that he raised him 
up from the dead,' etc. 2. The words 'raised up 
Jesus,' do not even relate to the resurrection of 
Jesus from the dead, but to the exhibition of him 
as a Saviour. This raising of him up is expressly 
distinguished from the raising of him again from 
the dead, which is subsequently spoken of, 
verse 34. The meaning is, that God fulfilled the 
promise made to the fathers, when he exhibited 
Christ to mankind in the flesh. But what was 
that promise ? This appears from the second 
Psalm, where God promises to the Church, that, 
in due time, he would anoint, as King over her, 
his own Son, begotten of himself to-day: that 
is, from eternity to eternity, for with God there 
is a perpetual to-day. Grotius, whose name is 
not offensive to our opposers, has remarked, that 
Luke makes use of the samo word to signify 
exhibiting, in Acts ii. 30 ; iii. 2G. To these we 
add another instance from chap. vii. 37 : 'A pro- 
phet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you.' 
3. Wero we to admit that the words of tho 
Psalm are applied to tho resurrection of Christ, 
Which seemed propor to Calvin, Cameron^ and 
several other Protestant divines, (lie sense will only 
be this, that, by his being thus raised up again, 



it was declared and demonstrated that Christ is 
the Son of the Father, begotten of him from 
everlasting. The Jewish council condemned him 
for blasphemy, because he had called himself the 
Son of God. But, by raising him again from the 
grave, after he had been put to death as a blas- 
phemer, God acquitted him from that charge, and 
publicly recognized him as his only-begotten 
Son. Thus he was declared, exhibited, and dis- 
tinguished as the Son of God with power, expressly 
and particularly, to the entire exclusion of all 
others. The original word here employed by the 
apostle is remarkably expressive ; and, as Ludo- 
vicus de Dieu has learnedly observed, it signifies 
that Christ was placed between such bounds, and 
so separated and discriminated from others, that 
he neither should nor can be judged to be any 
one else than the Son of God. The expression 
'with power,' may be joined with 'declared ;' and 
then the meaning will be that he was shown to 
be the Son of God by a powerful argument. Or 
it may be connected with the 'Son of God ;' and 
then it will intimate that he is the Son of God in 
the most ample and exalted sense of which the 
term is susceptible : so that this name, when 
ascribed to him, is ' a more excellent name' than 
any that is given to the noblest of creatures." — 
Witsius's Dissertations on the Creed. 

Solomon, in Proverbs viii. 22, introduces not 
the personified, but the personal wisdom of God, 
under the same relation of a Son, and in that 
relation ascribes to him Divine attributes. This 
was another source of the notion which obtained 
among the ancient Jews, that there was a Divine 
Son of God. 

" Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, 
Before his works of old. 
I was anointed from everlasting, 
From tho beginning, before tho world was, 
When there were no depths, I was born," etc.* 

Here, "from considering the excellence of 
wisdom, the transition is easy to the undefiled 
source of it. Abstract wisdom now disappears, 
and the inspired writer proceeds to the delineation 
of a Divine Being, who is portrayed in colors of 
such splendor and majesty, as can be attributed 
to no other than the eternal Son of God." 
(Holden's Translation of Proverbs.) "Jehovah 
possessed me in the beginning of his way/' 
"Tho Father possessed tho Son, had, or, as it 
were, acquired him by an eternal generation. 
To say of tho attribute wisdom, that God pos- 
sessed it in the beginning of his Avork of creation, 
is trifling; certainly it is too futile an observa- 



l Holden's Translation of Proverbs, in the notes to 
chapter viii., the application of this description of wisdom 
to Chrisl is ably and learnedly defended. 



302 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



tion to fall from any sensible -writer ; how, then, 
can it be attributed to the wise monarch of 
Israel?" (Holdex's Translation of Proverbs.) 
"I was anointed from everlasting." "Can it, 
with propriety, be said of an attribute, that it 
was anointed, invested with power and authority 
from everlasting ? In what way, literal or figu- 
rative, can the expression be predicated of a 
quality? But it is strictly applicable to the 
Divine Logos, who "was anointed by the effusion 
of the Spirit ; who was invested with power and 
dignity from everlasting; and who, from all 
eternity, derived his existence and essence from 
the Father ; for in him 'dwelleth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily.' " — Holder's Translation 
of Proverbs. 

It is a confirmation of the application of Solo- 
men's description of wisdom to the second person 
of the Trinity, that the ancient Jewish writers, 
(Philo among the number,) as Allix has shown, 
[Judgment of the Jewish Church.) speak of the 
generation of Wisdom, and by that term mean 
"the Word," a personal appellation so familiar to 
them. Nor is there any thing out of the common 
course of the thinking of the ancient Hebrews 
in these passages of Solomon, when applied to 
the personal wisdom ; since he, as we have seen, 
must, like them, have been well enough acquainted 
with a distinction of persons in the Trinity, and 
knew Jehovah, their Lawgiver and King, under 
the title of "the Word of the Lord," as the 
Maker of all things, and the Revealer of his 
will— in a word, as Divine, and yet distinct from 
the Father. The relation in the Godhead of 
Father and Son was not, therefore, to the Jews 
an unrevealed mystery, and sufficiently accounts 
for the ideas of Divinity which they, in the days 
of Christ, connected with the appellation Son of 
God. 

This relation is most unequivocally expressed 
in the prophecy of Micah, chap. v. 2 : "But thou, 
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among 
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he 
come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel : 
whose goings forth have been from of old, from 
everlasting;" or, as it is in the margin, "from 
the days of eternity." l Here the person spoken 
of is said to have had a twofold birth, or "going 
forth." 2 By a natural birth he came forth from 

1 So the LXX.. and the Vulgate, and the critics generally. 
"Antiquissima erit origine, ah reternis temporibus." (Dathe.) 
"Imo a diebus aeternitatis, i. e., priusquam natus fuerit, jam 
ab seterno extitit." — Rosexjicller. 

2 The -word N'i' , , to come forth, is used in reference to 
birth frequently, as Gen. xvii. 6; 2 Kings xx. 18; and so 
the Pharisees understood it, when referring to this passage 
in answer to Herod's inquiry where Christ should be 
"born." The plural form, his "goings forth" from eternity, 
denotes eminency. To signify the perfection and excellency 



Bethlehem to Judah ; by another and a higher, 
he was from the days of eternity. One is opposed 
to the other ; but the last is carried into eternity 
itself by words which most clearly intimate an 
existence prior to the birth in Bethlehem, and 
that an eternal one ; while the term used and 
translated his "goings forth," conveys precisely 
the same idea as the eternal generation of the 
Son of God. "The passage carefully distinguishes 
his human nature from his eternal generation. 
The prophet describes him who was to ' come out 
of Bethlehem' by another more eminent coming 
or going forth, even from all eternity. This is 
so signal a description of the Divine generation, 
, before all time, or of that going forth from ever- 
| lasting of Christ, the eternal Son of God ; < God, 
of the substance of the Father, begotten, before 
the worlds ;' who was afterward in time made 
man, and born into the world in Bethlehem, that 
the prophecy evidently belongs to him, and could 
never be verified of any other." — Dk. Pocock. 

This text, indeed, so decidedly indicates that 
peculiar notion of the Divinity of our Lord, 
which is marked by the term and the relation of 
Sox, that it is not surprising that Socinians 
should resort to the utmost violence of criticism 
to escape its powerful evidence. Dr. Priestley, 
therefore, says, "that it may be understood 
concerning the promises of God, in which the 
coming of Christ was signified to mankind from 
the beginning of the world." But nothing can 
be more forced or unsupported. The word here 
employed never signifies the work of God in pre- 
dicting future events ; but is often used to express 
natural birth and origin. So it is unquestionably 
used in the preceding clause, and cannot be 
supposed to be taken in a different sense, much 
less in a unique sense, in that which follows, and 
especially when a clear antithesis is marked and 
intended. He was to be born in time ; but was 
not, on that account, merely a man: he was 
"from the days of eternity." By his natural 
birth, or " going forth," he was from Bethlehem; 
but his "goings forth," his production, his 
heavenly birth or generation, was from everlast- 
ing; for so the Hebrew word means, though, 
like our own word "ever," it is sometimes 
accommodated to temporal duration. Its proper 
sense is that of eternity, and it is used in 
passages which speak of the infinite duration of 
God himself. 

Others refer "his goings forth from everlast- 

of that generation, the word for birth is expressed plurally ; 
for it is a common Hebraism to denote the eminency or con- 
tinuation of a thing or action by the plural number. God 
shall judge the world "in righteousness and equity;" 0* 
most righteously and equitably, Psalm xcviii. 9. -The 
angers of the Lord," Lam. iv. 16, etc. 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



303 



ing," to the purpose of God that he should come 
into the world ; but this is too absurd to need 
refutation: no such strange form of speech as 
this would be, if taken in this sense, occurs in 
the Scriptures ; and it would be mere trifling so 
solemnly to affirm that of Messiah, which is 
just as true of any other person born into the 
world. This passage must, then, stand as an 
irrefutable proof of the faith of the ancient 
Jewish Church, both in the Divinity and the 
Divine Sonship of Messiah ; and, as Dr. Hales 
well observes, (Hales's Analysis,) " This prophecy 
of Micah is, perhaps, the most important single 
prophecy in the Old Testament, and the most 
comprehensive respecting the personal character 
of the Messiah, and his successive manifesta- 
tion to the world. It crowns the whole chain 
of prophecies descriptive of the several limita- 
tions of the blessed Seed of the woman, to the 
line of Shem, to the family of Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, to the tribe of Judah, and to the 
royal house of David, here terminating in his 
birth at Bethlehem, 'the city of David.' It 
carefully distinguishes his human nativity from 
his eternal generation ; foretells the rejec- 
tion of the Israelites and Jews for a season, 
their final restoration, and the universal peace 
destined to prevail throughout the earth in ' the 
regenei-ation.' It forms, therefore, the basis of 
the New Testament, which begins with his human 
birth at Bethlehem, the miraculous circumstances 
of which are recorded in the introductions of 
Matthew's and Luke's Gospels : his eternal gene- 
ration, as the Oracle, or Wisdom, in the sublime 
introduction of John's Gospel: his prophetic 
character and second coming illustrated in the 
four Gospels and the Epistles : ending with a 
prediction of the speedy approach of the latter, 
in the Apocalypse, Rev. xxii. 20." 

The same relation of Son, in the full view of 
supreme Divinity, and where no reference appears 
to be had to the office and future work of 
Messiah, is found in Proverbs xxx. 4, "Who hath 
ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who 
hath gathered the wind in his fists ? Who hath 
bound the waters in a garment? Who hath 
established all the ends of the earth ? What is 
his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou 
canst tell?" Here the Deity is contemplated, 
not in his redeeming acts, in any respect or 
degree ; not as providing for the recovery of a 
lost race, or that of the Jewish people, by the gift 
of his Son : ho is placed before the reverend 
gaze of the prophet in his acts of creative and 
conserving power only, managing at will and 
ruling the operations df nadir.-; and yet, even 
in these peculiar offices of Divinity alone, ho is 
spoken of as having a Son, whoso "name," that 



is, according to the Hebrew idiom, whose nature 
is as deep, mysterious, and unutterable as his own. 
"What is His name, and what is his Son's 
name, canst thou tell V 1 

The Scriptures of the Old Testament themselves 
in this manner furnished the Jews with the idea 
of a personal Son in the Divine nature ; and 
their familiarity with it is abundantly evident, 
from the frequent application of the terms "Son," 
"Son of God," "first and only-begotten Son," 
"Offspring of God," to the Logos, by Philo; 
and that in passages where he must, in all fair 
interpretation, be understood as speaking of a 
personal, and not of a personified Logos. The 
same terms are also found in other Jewish writers 
before the Christian era. 

The phrase "Son of God" was, therefore, 
known to the ancient Jews, and to them con- 
veyed a very definite idea ; and it is no answer 
to this to say, that it was a common appellative 
of Messiah among their ancient writers. The 
question is, how came "Son of God" to be an 
appellative of Messiah? "Messiah" is an offi- 
cial title: "Son," & personal one. It is granted 
that the Messiah is the Son of God; but it is 
denied that, therefore, the term Son of God 
ceases to be a personal description, and that it 
imports the same with Messiah. David was the 
"son of Jesse," and the "king of Israel:" he, 
therefore, who was king of Israel was the son of 
Jesse ; but the latter is the personal, the former 
only the official description; and it cannot be 
argued that "son of Jesse" conveys no idea 
distinct from " king of Israel." On the contrary, 
it marks his origin and his family ; for, before 
he was king of Israel, he was the son of Jesse. 
In like manner, "Son of God" marks the natural 
relation of Messiah to God ; and the term Mes- 
siah his official relation to men. The personal 
title cannot otherwise be explained ; and as we 
have seen that it was used by the Jews as one 
of the titles of Messiah, yet still used personally, 
and not officially, and, also, without any reference 



1 Dr. A. Clarke, in his note on this text, evidently feels 
the difficulty of disposing of it on the theory that the term 
Son is not a Divine title, and enters a sort of caveat against 
resorting to doubtful toxts as proofs of our Lord's Divinity. 
But for all purposes for which this text has ever Ken 
adduced, it is not a doubtful one ; for it expresses as clearly 
as possible that God has a Son, and makes no reference to 
tbc incarnation at all: so that the words air not spoken In 
anticipation of that event. Those who denj the Divine 

Sonship can never, therefore, explain that text. What 
follows in tho noto referred to is more objectionable: it 
hints at the Obscurity Ol the writer as weakening his 
authority. "Who he was, or what he was, we indeed know 
not; but his words stand in the book Of IVosorhs, a hook. 
tho inspiration of Which both OUT Lord and his apostles 

have verified, and that Is enough: we need no other attesta- 
tion. 



304 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



to the miraculous conception at all, as before 
proved, it follows that it expresses a natural rela- 
tion to God, subsisting not in the human, but in 
the higher nature of Messiah; and, this higher 
nature being proved to be Divine, it follows that 
the term Son of God, as applied to Jesus, is, there- 
fore, a title of absolute Divinity, importing his 
participation in the very nature and essence of 
God. The same ideas of Divine Sonship are 
suggested by almost every passage in which the 
phrase occurs in the New Testament. 

""When Jesus was baptized, he went up 
straightway out of the water, and lo, the hea- 
vens were opened unto him, and he saw the 
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and light- 
ing upon him ; and lo, a voice from heaven, This 
is my beloved Sox, in whom I am well pleased." 
The circumstances of this testimony are of the 
most solemn and impressive kind, and there can 
be no rational doubt that they were designed 
authoritatively to invest our Lord with the title 
"Son of God" in the full sense which it bears 
in those prophecies in which the Messias had 
been introduced under that appellation, rendered 
still more strong and emphatic by adding the 
epithet "beloved," and the declaration that in 
him the "Father was well pleased." That the 
name "Son of God" is not here given to Christ 
with reference to his resurrection, need not be 
stated : that it was not given to him, along with 
a declaration of the Father's pleasure in him, 
because of the manner in which he had fulfilled 
the office of Messiah, is also obvious, for he was 
but just then entering upon his office and com- 
mencing his ministry; and if, therefore, it can 
be proved that it was not given to him with re- 
ference to his miraculous conception, it must 
follow that it was given on grounds independent 
of his office, and independent of the circum- 
stances of his birth ; and that, therefore, he was 
in a higher nature than his human, and for a 
higher reason than an official one, the "Son of 
God." 

Now this is, I think, very easily and conclu- 
sively proved. As soon as the Baptist John had 
heard this testimony, and seen this descent of 
the Holy Spirit upon him, he tells us that he 
"bare record that this is the Son of God :" the 
Messiah, we grant, but not the Son of God be- 
cause he was the Messiah, but Son of God and 
Messiah also. This is clear, from the opinion 
of the Jews of that day, as before shown. It 
was to the Jews that he "bare record" that 
Jesus was the Son of God. But he used this 
title in the sense commonly received by his 
hearers. Had he simply testified that he was 
the Messiah, this would not to them in general 
have expressed the idea which all attached to 



[part II. 

the name " Son of God," and which they took to 
involve a Divine character and claim. But in 
this ordinary sense of the title among the Jews, 
John the Baptist gave his testimony to him, and 
by that shows in what sense he himself under- 
stood the testimony of God to the Sonship of 
Jesus. So, in his closing testimony to Christ, 
recorded in John iii., he makes an evident allu- 
sion to what took place at the baptism of our 
Lord, and says, "The Father loveth the Son, and 
hath given all things into his hand." Here the 
love of the Father, as declared at his baptism, is 
represented as love to him as the Son, and all 
things being given into his hands, as the conse- 
quence of his being his beloved Son. "All 
things," unquestionably imply all offices, all 
power and authority ; all that is included in the 
offices of King, Messias, Mediator; and it is 
affirmed, not that he is Son, and beloved as a 
Son, because of his being invested with these 
offices, but that he is invested with them because 
he was the well-beloved Son: a circumstance 
which fully demonstrates that "Son of God" is 
not an official title, and that it is not of the same 
import as Messiah. To the transaction at his 
baptism our Lord himself adverts in John v. 37 : 
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, 
hath borne witness of me." For, as he had just 
mentioned the witness arising from his miracu- 
lous works, and, in addition to these, introduces 
the witness of the Father himself as distinct from 
the works, a personal testimony from the Father 
alone can be intended, and that personal testi- 
mony was given at his baptism. Now, the wit- 
ness of the Father, on this occasion, is, that he 
was his beloved Son ; and it is remarkable that 
our Lord introduces the Father's testimony to 
his Sonship on an occasion in which the matter 
in dispute with the Jews was respecting his 
claim to be the Son of God. The Jews denied 
that God was his Father in the sense in which he 
had declared him to be so, and "they sought the 
more to kill him, because he not only had broken 
the Sabbath, but said also that God was his 
Father, making himself equal with God." In this 
case, what was the conduct of our Lord? He 
reaffirms his Sonship even in this very objection- 
able sense: asserts that "the Son doeth all 
things soever that the Father doeth," verse 19: 
that "as the Father raiseth the dead, so the Son 
quickeneth whomsoever he will," verse 21 : that 
" all judgment has been committed to the Son, 
that all men should honor the Son, even as they 
honor the Father," verse 23: that "as the 
Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to 
the Son to have life in himself," verse 26; and 
then confirms all these high claims of equality 
with the Father, by adducing the Father's own 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY, 



305 



witness at his baptism: "And the Father him- 
self hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither 
heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape ; 
and ye have not his word abiding in you, for 
whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." x With 
respect to this testimony, two critical remarks 
have been made, which, though not essential to 
the argument, further corroborate the views just 
taken. The one is, that in all the three evangel- 
ists who record the testimony of the Father to 
Christ at his baptism, the article is prefixed both 
to the substantive and the adjective. Matt. iii. 
17 : Ovrog kartv 6 Tloc fxov 6 dyairnrbg, the most 
discriminating mode of expression that could be 
employed, as if to separate Jesus from every 
other who, at any time, had received the appella- 
tion of the Son of God : This is that Son of mine 
who is the beloved. In the second clause, "in 
whom I am well pleased," the verb in all the 
three evangelists is in the first aorist, kv 6 
evdoKrjoa. Now, although we often render the 
Greek aorist by the English present, yet this can 
be done with propriety only when the proposi- 
tion is equally true, whetherit be stated in the 
present, in the past, or in the future time. And 
thus the analogy of the Greek language requires 
us not only to consider the name Son of God as 
applied in a peculiar sense to Jesus, but also to 
refer the expression used at his baptism to that 
intercourse which had subsisted between the 
Father and the Son, before this name was an- 
nounced to men. 2 

The epithet "only-begotten," which several 
times occurs in the New Testament, affords 
further proof of the Sonship of Christ in his 
Divine nature. One of these instances only need 
be selected. "The Word was made flesh, and 

l Though tho argument does not at all depend upon it, 
yet it may be proper to refer to Campbell's translation of 
these verses, as placing some of the clauses in this passage 
in a clearer light. " Now the Father, who sent me, hath 
himself attested me. Did ye never hear his voice, or see 
his form? Or, have ye forgotten his declaration, that 'ye 
believe not him whom ho hath commissioned?'" On this 
translation Dr. Campbell remarks, "The reader will ob- 
serve that tho two clauses, which are rendered in the 
English Bible as dechirations, are, in this version, trans- 
lated as questions. Tho difference in tho original is only 
in tho pointing. That they ought to bo so read, wo need 
not, in my opinion, stronger evidence than that they throw 
much light upon tho wholo passage. Our Lord hero refors 
I" the testimony given at his baptism; and when you road 
tin two clauses as questions, all the chief circumstances at- 
tending that memorable testimony are exactly pointed out, 
'Have ye never heard his voice, fww) etc rtiv uvpavuv, 
nor Been his form?' tho rjofiarinbv eUog, j n which, St. 
Luke says, the Holy Ghosl descended. 'Ami have ye not 
liis declaration abiding in you?' Tbv Xuyov, tho words 
Which wore s|n>k<'ii at thai time." 

'■'■ "'rii. .I, art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, 
thai Is, have alwaj i been well pleased, am at present well 
i atinuo to bo well pleased."— Macb 
21) 



dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the 
glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, 
full of grace and truth." If the epithet only- 
begotten referred to Christ's miraculous concep- 
tion, then the glory "as of the only-begotten" 
must be a glory of the human nature of Christ 
only, for that alone was capable of being thus 
conceived. This is, however, clearly contrary to 
the scope of the passage, which does not speak 
of the glory of the nature, "the flesh," which 
"the Word" assumed, but of the glory of the 
Word himself, who is here said to be the only- 
begotten of the Father. It is, therefore, the 
glory of his Divine nature which is here in- 
tended. 3 Such, too, was the sense in which the 
primitive Church and the immediate followers of 
the apostles understood the title y.ovoyev7)g, only- 
begotten, or only Son, as Bishop Bull has shown 
at length, {Judicium Eccles.,) and "to him and 
others," says Dr. Waterland, "I may refer for 
proof that the title, Son of God, or only-begotten 
Son in Scripture, cannot be reasonably under- 
stood either of our Lord's miraculous conception 
by the Holy Ghost, or of his Messiahship, or of 
his being the first begotten from the dead, or of 
his receiving all power, and his being appointed 
heir of all things. None of these circumstances, 
singly considered, nor all together, will be suffi- 
cient to account for the title only Son, or only- 
begotten ; but it is necessary to look higher up 
to the preexistence and Divine nature of the 
Word, who was in the beginning with God, and 
was himself very God, before the creation, and 
from all eternity. Angels and men have been 
called sons of God, in an improper and meta- 
phorical sense, but they have never been styled 
' only-begotten,'' nor, indeed, 'sons,' in any such 
distinguishing and emphatic manner as Christ is. 
They are sons by adoption, or faint resemblance: 
he is truly, properly, and eminently Son of God, 
and, therefore, Gocl, as every son of man is, there- 
fore, truly man. " The note in the Socinian version 
tells us, "that this expression does not refer to 
any peculiar mode of derivation or existence ; but 
is used to express merely a higher degree of 
affection, and is applied to Isaac, though Abraham 
had other sons." Isaac is, however, so called, 
because he was the only child which Abraham 
had by his wife Sarah, and this instanco is, 
therefore, against them. The other passages in 
this Gospel and in St. John's First Epistle, in 

3 "The glory as of tho only-begotten," etc. "Tho particle 
wc, as, is not here a noto of similitude, but of confirmation, 
that this Son was tho ouly-begotton of tho Father."— 
OViuTnv.) "This particle sometimes answers to tho He- 
brew ach, and signifies certc, truly." (Ibid.) fio Schleusner, 
in voc, L6, revera, vere. Tho clause may, therefore, be pro- 
perly rendered, •''The glory Indeed, or truly, of the only- 
in of the Father." 



306 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART LT. 



which the term is used, give no countenance to 
this interpretation, and in the only other pas- 
sages in the Xew Testament in which it occurs, 
it unquestionably means an " only son or child." 
Luke vii. 12: "Behold, there was a dead man 
carried out, the only son of his mother/' Luke 
viii. 42 : " For he had one only daughter." Luke 
ix. 38 : " Master, look upon my son, for he is my 
only child." Here, then, on the one hand, there 
is no passage in "which the epithet only-beyoiten 
occurs, which indicates by any other phrase or 
circumstance that it has the force of well beloved; 
■while there are several which, from the circum- 
stances, oblige us to interpret it literally as ex- 
pressive of a peculiar relationship of the child to 
the parent, an only, an only-begotten child. This 
is, then, the sense in which it is used of Christ, 
and it must respect either his Divine or human 
nature. Those who refer it to his human nature, 
consider it as founded upon his miraculous con- 
ception. It is, however, clear that that could 
not constitute him a son, except as it consisted 
in the immediate formation of the manhood of 
our Lord by the power of God ; but, in this 
respect, he was not the "only-begotten i," not the 
"only Son," because Adam was thus also imme- 
diately produced, and for this very reason is 
called by St. Luke "the son of God." Seeing, 
then, that [iovoyev7}g, only-begotten, does not any- 
where import the affection of a parent, but the 
peculiar relation of an only son; and that this 
peculiarity does not apply to the production of 
the mere human nature of our Lord, the first 
man being in this sense, and for this very reason. 
"a son of God," thereby excluding Christ, con- 
sidered as a man, from the relation of only Son, 
the epithet can only be applied to the Divine 
nature of our Lord, in which alone he is at once 
naturally and exclusively "the Sox or the liytxg 
God." 

All those passages, too, which declare that 
"all things were made by the Son," and that God 
"sent his Son" into the world, may be considered 
as declarations of a Divine Sonship, because they 
imply that the Creator was, at the very period 
of creation, a Sox, and that he was the Sox of 
God when, and consequently before, he was sent 
into the world : and thus both will prove, that 
that relation is independent either of his official 
appointment as Messiah, or of his incarnation. 
The only plausible objection to this is, that when 
a person is designated by a particular title, he is 
often said to perform actions under that title, 
though the designation may have been given to 
him subsequently. Certain acts may be said to 
have been done by the king, though, in fact, he 
performed them before his advancement to the 
throne; and we ascribe the "Principia" to Sir 



Isaac Xewton, though that work was written be- 
fore he received the honor of knighthood. Ltl 
this manner we are told, by those who allow the 
Divinity of Christ, while they deny his Divine 
Sonship, that, as Son of God was one of the 
common appellations of Christ among his disci- 
ples, it was natural for them to ascribe creation, 
and other Divine acts performed before the incar- 
nation, to the Son, meaning merely that they 
were done by that same Divine person who, in 
consequence of his incarnation and miraculous 
conception, became the Son of God, and was by 
his disciples acknowledged as such. 

The whole of this argument supposes that the 
titles "the Sox," " the Sox or God," are merely 
human titles, and that they are applied to Christ, 
when considered as God, and in his preexistent 
state, only in consequence of that interchange of 
appellations to which the circumstance of the 
union of two natures, Divine and human, in one 
person, so naturally leads. Thus it is said, that 
the "Lord of glory" was "crucified:" that God 
purchased the Church "with his own blood:" that' 
"the Sox of max*' was "in heaven" before the 
ascension. So also, in familiar style, we speak 
\ of the Divinity of Jesus, and of the Godhead 
of the Sox of Mart. An interchange of appella- 
tions is acknowledged ; but then even this sup- 
poses that some of them are designations of his 
Divine, while others describe his assumed nature ; 
and the simple circumstance of such an inter- 
change will no more prove the title Sox of God 
to be a human designation, than it will prove Sox 
of Mart to be a Divine one. Further, if such an 
interchange of titles be thus contended for, we 
may then ask, Which of the titles, in strict 
appropriation, designate the human, and which 
the Divine nature of our Lord? If "Son of 
God" be, in strictness, a human designation, and 
so it must be, if it relate not to his Divinity, 
then we may say that our Saviour, as God, has no 
distinctive name at all in the whole Scriptures. 
The title "God" does not distinguish him from 
the other persons of the Trinity, and Word stands 
in precisely the same predicament as Sox; for 
the same kind of criticism may reduce it to 
merely an official appellative, given because of 
his being the medium of instructing men in the 
will of God ; and it may, with equal force, be 
said that he is called "the Word" in his pre- 
existent state only, because he in time became the 
Word, in like manner as, in time also, he became 
the Son. The other names of Christ are all 
official; and as in the Scriptures we have no such 
phrase as "the second person in the Trinity," and 
other theological designations, since adopted, to 
express the Divinity of Christ, the denial of the 
title Sox as a designation of Divinity leads to 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



307 



this remarkable conclusion, (remarkable especi- 
ally, when considered as coming from those who 
hold the Deity of Christ,) that we have not in 
Scripture, neither in the Old nor the New Testa- 
ment, a single appellation which, in strictness 
and truth of speech, can be used to express the 
Divine person of him who was made flesh and 
dwelt among us. If, then, an interchange of 
Divine and human designations be allowed, the 
title "Son of God" may still be a Divine descrip- 
tion for any thing which such an interchange 
implies : if it is not a designation of his Divinity, 
we are left without a name for our Saviour as 
God, and considered as existing before the in- 
carnation, and so there can properly be no inter- 
change of Divine and human titles at all. 

But the notion that the title Son of God is an 
appellation of the human nature of our Lord, 
applied sometimes to him, when his Divine char- 
acter and acts are distinctly considered, by a 
customary interchange of designations, is a mere 
assumption. There is nothing to prove it, while 
all those passages which connect the title " Son," 
immediately, and by way of eminence, with his 
Divinity, remain wholly unaccounted for on this 
theory, and are, therefore, contrary to it. Let a 
few of these be examined. It is evident that, in 
a peculiar sense, he claims God as his Father, 
and that with no reference either to the incarna- 
tion or resurrection, or to any thing beside a 
relation in the Divine nature. So, when he had 
said to the Jews, " My Father worketh hitherto, 
and I work," the Jews so understood him to 
claim God for his Father as to equal himself with 
God — "they sought the more to kill him, because 
he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also 
that God was his Father, narepa Idiov, his own 
proper Father, making himself equal with 
God;" and, so far from correcting this as an 
error in his hearers, which he was bound to do 
by every moral consideration, if they had so 
greatly mistaken him, he goes on to confirm them 
in their opinion as to the extent of his claims, 
declaring, that "what things soever the Father 
doeth, these also doth the Son likewise ; and that 
BS the Father hath life in himself, so hath he 
given the Son to have life in himself." In all 
this it is admitted by our Lord that whatever ho 
is and has is from the Father; which is, indeed, 
implied in the very name and relation of Son; 
bul if this communication be not of so peculiar 
a hind as to imply an n/r/<>l t : ?>/ with God, a same- 
ness of nature ami perfections, there is not only an 
arrantable presumption in the Avoids of our 
Lord, lint, in the circumstances in which they 
were uttered, there is an equivocation in them 
Inconsistent with the sincerity of an honest man. 
This argument is confirmed by attending to a 



similar passage in the tenth chapter of John. 
Our Lord says, "They shall never perish: my 
Father which gave them me is greater than I, 
and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's 
hand. I and my Father are one. Then the 
Jews took up stones to stone him." And they 
assign, for so doing, the very same reason which 
St. John has mentioned in the fifth chapter : 
"We stone thee for blasphemy, because that 
thou, being a man, mahest thyself God." Our 
Lord's answer is : "Is it not written in your law, 
I said ye are gods ? If he called them gods unto 
whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures 
cannot be broken," i. e., if the language of Scrip- 
ture be unexceptionable, "say ye of him whom 
the Father hath sanctified and sent into the 
world, thou blasphemest, because I said, I am 
the Son of God ?" These words are sometimes 
quoted in support of the opinion of those who 
hold that our Saviour is called the Son of God, 
purely upon account of the commission which he 
received. "But the force of the argument and 
the consistency of the discourse require us to 
affix a much higher meaning to .that expression. 
Our Lord is reasoning (I fortiori. He vindicates 
himself from the charge of blasphemy in calling 
himself the Son of God, because even those who 
hold civil offices upon earth are called, in Scrip- 
ture, gods. 1 But that he might not appear to 
put himself upon a level with them, and to 
retract his former assertion, 'I and my Father 
are one,' he not only calls himself 'him whom 
the Father hath^sent into the world,' which im- 
plies that he had a being, and that God was his 
Father, before he was sent; but he subjoins, 'If 
I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 
But if I do, though you believe not me, believe 
the works, that ye may know and believe that 
the Father is in me, and I in him! — expressions 
which appear to be equivalent to his former 
assertion, 'I and the Father are one,' and which 
were certainly understood by the Jews in that 
sense, for as soon as he uttered them they sought 
again to take him." — Hill's Lectures. 

To these two eminent instances, in which our 
Lord claims God as his Father, in reference solely 
to his Divine nature, and to no circumstance 
whatever connected with his birth or his offices, 
may be added his unequivocal answer, on his 
trial, to the direct question of the Jewish council. 
"Then said they all, Art thou tho Son of God ? 



1 "This argument, which is from tho loss to the greater, 
proa <ils thus: If those who having nothing Divine in them, 
namely, the judges of tho great Banhedrim, to whom tho 
psalmist, there speaks, are called gods for this reason only, 
that they have in them a certain imported Image ofDi\ Ine 

power and authority, how mnoh moro may 1 In- called God, 
the Son of Qod, who am tho natural Son of God.°— BI8H0P 

Bull. 



308 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



and he saith unto them, Ye say that I am," that 
is, / am that ye say : thus declaring that, in the 
very sense in which they put the question, he was 
the Son of God. In confessing himself to be, in 
that sense, the Son of God, he did more than 
claim to be the Messiah, for the council judged 
him for that reason guilty of "blasphemy:" a 
charge which could not lie against any one, by 
the Jewish law, for professing to be the Messiah. 
It was in their judgment a case of blasphemy, 
explicitly provided against' by their "law," 
which inflicted death upon the offence ; but, in 
the whole Mosaic institute, it is not a capital 
crime to assume the title and character of 
Messiah. Why, then, did the confession of 
Christ, that he was the "Son of God," in answer 
to the interrogatory of the council, lead them to 
exclaim, "What need we any further witness? 
for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth — 
he is guilty of death." "We have a law, and 
by oui- law he ought to die." The reason is 
given, "because he made himself the Son op God." 
His "blasphemy" was alleged to lie in this ; this, 
therefore, implied an invasion of the rights and 
honors of the Divine nature, and was, in their 
view, an assumption of positive Divinity. Our 
Lord, by his conduct, shows that they did not 
mistake his intention. He allows them to pro- 
ceed against him without lowering his preten- 
sions, or correcting their mistake ; which, had 
they really fallen into one, as to the import of the 
title "Son of God," he must have done, or been 
accessary to his own condemnation. 1 

As in none of these passages the title Son of 
God can possibly be considered as a designation 
of his human nature or office ; so, in the apos- 
tolic writings, we find proof of equal force that 
it is used even by way of opposition and contra- 
distinction to the human and inferior nature. 
Eomans i. 3, 4, "Concerning his Son Jesus 
Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed 
of David according to the flesh ; and declared to 
be the Son of God with power, according to the 
Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the 
dead." A very few remarks will be sufficient to 
point out the force of this passage. The apostle, 
it is to be observed, is not speaking of what 
Christ is officially, but of what he is personally 
and essentially, for the truth of all his official 
claims depends upon the truth of his personal 
ones: if he be a Divine person, he is every 
thing else he assumes to be. He is, therefore, 
considered by the apostle distinctly in his two 
natures. As a man he was "flesh," "of the 

1 See this argument largely and ably stated in Wilson's 
"Illustration of the Method of explaining the New Testa- 
ment, by the early opinions of Jews and Christians con- 
cerning Christ." 



[part n. 

seed of David," and a son of David ; in a supe- 
rior nature he was Divine, and the Son of God. 
To prove that he was of the seed of David, no 
evidence was necessary but the Jewish genealo- 
gies : to prove him Divine, or, as the apostle 
chooses to express it, "The Son of God," evi- 
dence of a higher kind was necessary, and it 
was given in his "resurrection from the dead." 
That "declared him to be the Son of God with 
power" or powerfully determined and marked him 
out to be the Son of God, a Divine person. That 
an opposition is expressed between what Christ 
was according to the flesh, and what he was ac- 
cording to a higher nature, must be allowed, or 
there is no force in the apostle's observation ; and 
equally clear it must be that the nature, put in 
opposition to the fleshly nature, can be no other 
than the Divine nature of Christ, the apostolic 
designation of which is the "Son op God." 

This opposition between the two natures is 
sufficiently marked for the purpose of the argu- 
ment, without taking into account the import of 
the phrase in the passage just quoted, "accord- 
ing to the Spirit of holiness," which, by many 
critics, is considered as equivalent to "according 
to his Divine nature." 

Because of the opposition, stated by the apos- 
tle, between what Christ was, tcarcl, according to, 
in respect of, the flesh; and his being declared 
the Son of God with power, Kara, according to, 
in respect of, "the Spirit of holiness;" Mac- 
knight, following many others, interprets the 
" Spirit of holiness" to mean the Divine nature 
of Christ, as "the flesh" signifies his whole hu- 
man nature. To this Schleusner adds his au- 
thority, sub voce ayioavvv. "Summa Dei ma- 
jestas et perfectio, Komans i. 4, Kara, nvevpa 
ayiuovvng. Quoad vim suam et majestatem di- 
vinam. Similiter in vers. Alex, non solum, Heb. 
TIM, Psa. cxlv. 4, 5, sed etiam r<p t»Tp respondet, 
Psa. xcvii. 12." 

Doddridge demurs to this, on the ground of 
its being unusual in Scripture to call the Divine 
nature of Christ "the Spirit of holiness," or the 
"Holy Spirit." This is, however, far from a 
conclusive objection: it is not so clear that there 
are not several instances of this in Scripture; 
and certain it is, that the most ancient fathers 
frequently use the terms "Spirit," and "Spirit of 
God" to express the Divine nature of our Lord. 
"Certissimum est," says Bishop Bull, "Filium 
Dei, secundum Deitatis hypostasin in scriptis 
Patrum titulo Spiritus, et Spiritus Dei et Spiritus 
Sa?icti passim insigniri." To this we may add 
the authority of many other eminent critics. 1 

i " We have observed so often before that the Spirit in 
Christ, especially when opposed to the flesh, denotes bis 
Divine nature, that it is needless to repeat it. Nor ought 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



309 



The whole argument of the Apostle Paul, in 
the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
is designed to prove our Lord superior to angels ; 
and he adduces, as conclusive evidence on this 
point, that to none of the angels was it ever said, 
"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee. And again, I will be to him a Father, 
and he shall be to me a Son." It is, therefore, 
clear that, on this very ground of Sonship, our 
Lord is argued to be superior to angels, that is, 
superior in nature and in natural relation to God; 
for in no other way is the argument conclusive. 
He has his title Son, by inheritance, that is, by 
natural and hereditary right. It is by "inherit- 
ance" that he hath obtained a "more excellent 
name"' than angels: that is, by his being of the 
Father, and, therefore, by virtue of his Divine 
filiation. Angels may be, in an inferior sense, 
the sons of God by creation; but they cannot 
inherit that title, for this plain reason, that they 
are created, not begotten: while our Lord inherits 
the "more excellent name" because he is " be- 
gotten" not created. "For unto which of the 
angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, 
this day have I begotten thee?" 1 The same 



it to seem strange that Christ, as the Son of God, and God, 
is here called the Spirit of holiness, an appellation gene- 
rally given to the third person of the Divinity, for the 
same Divine and spiritual nature is common to every per- 
son of the Trinity. Hence we have observed that Hernias, 
a cotemporary of St. Paul, has expressly called the Divine 
person of the Son of God a Holy Spirit." (Bull.) "When 
the term Spirit refers to Christ, and is put in opposition to 
the flesh, it denotes his Divine nature." (Schcettgen.) The 
same view is taken of the passage by Beza, Erasmus, Cam- 
eron, Hammond, Poole, and Macknight. The note of Dr. 
Guysc contains a powerful reason for this interpretation. 
"If ' the Spirit of holiness' is here considered as express- 
ive of the sense in which Cbrist is 'the Son of God,' it 
evidently signifies his Divine nature, in opposition to what 
lie was according to tho flesh; and so the antithesis is very 
beautiful between Kara Tvevfia, according to the Spirit, 
and Kara cupm, according to the flesh. But if we con- 
sider it as the principle of tho power by which Christ was 
raised from the dead, for demonstrating him to be the Son 
of God, it may signify either his own Divine nature or the 
Holy Spirit, the third person in the adorable Trinity; and 
yet, unless his own Divine nature concurred in raising him 
from the dead, his resurrection, abstractedly considered in 
itself, no more proved him to be the Son of God, than the 
resurrection of believers, by tho power of God, and by 

pirit who dvvelleth in them,' Horn. viii. 11, proves any 
Of them to bo so." It is also in corroboration of this view 
that Christ represents himself as tho agent of his own 

l 'ction. "I lay down my life, and I have power to 
1 ■'' ' '' again." "Destroy this temple, and in thrco days 
1 v, tLl i' ' i,--i, IT UP." 

1 " llllv be granted (hat K^npovo/ieo is not always used 

toexpres8 the obtaining of a thing by strict hereditary 

bul also to acquire it by other means, though still 

,l '" ldl •' "< '"',<'' • : '••''<]. The argumeni of th 

He, howover, compels us I., take the word in Its primary 
*nd proper in i< , which is well expressed in our transla- 
tion,^ obtain by inheritance. "The apostle's argument, 
«•« from the name Son of God, is this: he hath that 



ideas of absolute Divinity connect themselves 
with the title throughout this chapter. "The 
Son," by whom "God in these latter days hath 
spoken to us," is "the brightness, the effulgence 
of his glory, and the express, or exact and per- 
fect image of his person." But it is only to the 
Divine nature of our Lord that these expressions 
can refer. "The brightness of his glory" is a 
phrase in which allusion is made to a luminous 
body which is made visible by its own effulgence. 
The Father is compared to the original fountain 
of light, and the Son to the effulgence or body 
of rays streaming from it. Thus we are taught, 
that the essence of both is the same : that the 
one is inseparable from, and not to be conceived 
of without, the other: consequently, that neither 
of them ever was or could be alone. The Son is 
declared to be of the same nature and eternity 
with the Father; "And from hence, more par- 
ticularly, the Church seems to have taken the 
occasion of confessing, in opposition to the Arian 
heresy, as we find it done in one of our creeds, 
that 'Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of 
God, was begotten of the Father before all 
worlds ; that he is God of God, Light of Light, 
very God of very God, of one substance with 
the Father, by whom all things are made.' " 
(Stanhope.) Certainly, this brightness, or ef- 
fulgence from the Father, is expressly spoken of 
the Son ; but it cannot be affirmed of him with 
reference to his humanity ; and if it must neces- 
sarily be understood of his superior, his Divine 
nature, it necessarily implies the idea which is 
suggested by Sonship. For if the second per- 
son of the Trinity were coordinate and independent, 
in no good sense could he be the effulgence, the 
lustre of the glory of the Father. He might 
exhibit an equal and rival glory, as one sun 
equally large and bright with another ; but our 
Lord would, in that case, be no more an efful- 
gence of the glory of the Father than one of 
these suns would be an effulgence of the other. 
The "express image of his person" is equally a 
note of filial Divinity. The word x a P aKT W sig- 
nifies an impression or mark, answering to a 
seal or stamp, or die, and therefore an exact or 
perfect resemblance, as tho figure on the coin 
answers to the die by which it is stamped, and 
the image on the wax to the engraving on the 
seal. It is impossible that this should be spoken 
of a creature, because it cannot bo true of any 
creature; and therefore not true of the human 
nature of our Lord. "The sentiment is, Indeed, 
too high for our ideas to reach. This, however, 



name by inheritance, or on account of his descent from 
God; and Jesus, by calling hhnae\{ the only-begotten 
Wither, hath excluded from thai honorable relation angels 
and every other beings whatever."— M.vcKMuur. 



310 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



seems to be fully implied in it, that the Son is 
personally distinct from the Father, for the im- 
pression and the seal are not one thing, and that 
the essential nature of both is one and the 
same," (Dr. P. Smith,) since one is so the exact 
and perfect image of the other, that our Lord 
could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the 
Father." 1 Still, however, the likeness is not 
that of one independent and unrelated being to 
another, as of man to man; but the more per- 
fect one of Son to Father. So it is expressly 
affirmed; for it is "the Son" who is this "ex- 
press image;" nor would the resemblance of one 
independent Divine person to another come up 
to the idea conveyed by x a P aKT V? r V c vTroardueac. 
Both this and the preceding phrase, the "bright- 
ness of his glory," with sufficient . clearness de- 
note not only sameness of essence and distinction 
of person, but dependence and communication also ; 
ideas which are preserved and harmonized in 
the doctrine of the Sonship of Christ, and in no 
other. 

In the same conjunction of the term Son with 
ideas of absolute Divinity, the apostle, in a sub- 
seqiient part of the same chapter, applies that 
lofty passage in the forty-fifth Psalm, "But 
unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, God, is for 
ever and ever," etc. The Socinian criticisms on 
this passage have already been refuted ; and it 
is only necessary to remark on this passage as it 
is in proof of the Divine Sonship. It is allowed, 
by all who hold his Deity, that Christ is here 
addressed as a being composed of two natures, 
God and man. "The unction with the ' oil of 
gladness,' and the elevation above his fellows,'' 
characterize the manhood; and the perpetual 
stability of his throne, and the unsullied justice 
of the government, declare the Godhead." (Bish- 
op Horsley.) He is, however, called the Son; 
but this is a term which could not characterize 
the Being here introduced, unless it agreed to 
his higher and Divine nature. The Son is ad- 
dressed: that Son is addressed as God, as God 
whose throne is for ever and ever ; and by this 
argument it is that the apostle proves the Son 
to be superior to angels. 

A few other passages may be introduced, 
which, with equal demonstration, attach the 
term Son, eminently and emphatically, to our 
Lord's Divine nature. 

"God sending his own Son, in the likeness of 
sinful flesh." Romans viii. 3. Here the person 
entitled the Son is said to be sent in the likeness 
of sinful flesh. In what other way could he 
have been sent, if he were Son only as & man ? 

i "Imago majestatis Divinse, ita, ut, qui Filium videt, 
etiain Patrem videat." — Schleusner. 



[part lt. 

The apostle most clearly intimates that he was 
Son before he was sent ; and that flesh was the 
nature assumed by the Son, but not the nature in 
which he was the Son, as he there uses the term. 

"Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house 
as a servant, but Christ as a Son over his own 
house." "This is illustrative of the position 
before laid down, (verse 3,) that Jesus was 
counted worthy of more glory than Moses. The 
Jewish lawgiver was only 'as a servant,' but 
Christ 'as a Son;' but if the latter were only a 
Son in a metaphorical sense, the contrast would 
be entirely destroyed : he could only be a ser- 
vant, like Moses ; and the grounds of his supe- 
riority, as a Son, would be completely subverted: 
he must, therefore, be a Son in respect to his 
Divine nature. In conformity with this conclu- 
sion, it is here said that Moses was faithful in 
all his house as a servant in the Jewish Church, 
but Christ was faithful over his own house — 
over the Christian Church a-3 its Lord and 
Master." (Holden's Testimonies.) " Moses erat 
kv rCi oIku, et pertinebat ad familiam ; Christus 
vero £tt£ tov olkov, supra familiam, ut ejus prce- 
fectus et dominus." (Rosenmuller.) "He says 
that Moses was faithful as a servant — Christ as 
a Son, and that Christ was counted worthy of 
more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who 
hath builded the house hath more honor than 
the house ; that is, the difference between Christ 
and Moses is that which is between him -who 
creates and the thing created." (Bishop Tomline.) 
To be a Son is, then, in the apostle's sense of the 
passage, to be a Creator ; and to be a servant, a 
creature: a decisive proof that Christ is called 
Son, as God, because he is put in contradistinc- 
tion to a creature. 

To these may be added all those passages in 
which the first person is called the Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ; because as, when the 
persons are distinctly spoken of, it is clear that 
he who produced the human nature of Christ, in 
the womb of the Virgin, was the third person, a 
fact several times emphatically and expressly 
declared in the New Testament: so, as far as 
natural relation is concerned, the first person 
can only have paternity with reference to the 
Divine nature of the Son ; and we are reduced 
to admit, either that the terms Father and Son 
are wholly figurative, or that they express a 
natural relation, which relation, however, can 
only subsist between these persons in the God- 
head. 

" For," as it has been very justly observed, "at 
the very same time that our Lord most expressly 
calls the first person of the Godhead his Father, 
he makes the plainest distinction that is possible 
between the Father, as such, and the Holy 



en. xii.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



311 



Ghost. By the personal acts which he ascribes 
to the Spirit of God, he distinguishes the first 
person, as his Father, from the third person of 
the Divine essence ; for he said, ' I will pray the 
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, 
that he may abide with you for ever, even the 
Spirit of truth.' This Comforter, said he, 'is 
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in 
my name. But when the Comforter is come, 
whom I will send unto you from the Father, even 
the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the 
Father, he shall testify of me.' John xiv. 16, 17, 
26 ; xv. 26. Here our Lord calls the first per- 
son, most expressly and undeniably, 'the Father,' 
and the third person as expressly 'the Holy 
Ghost.' It is most evident, and beyond even the 
possibility of a doubt, that he does not, by these 
two appellatives, mean one and the self-same 
Divine person; for he says he 'will pray the 
Father' to send the Comforter to his Church, 
calling him 'the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
will send in his name.' And he sends 'the Holy 
Ghost, the Spirit of truth, from the Father, 
which proceedeth from the Father.' Therefore 
the Holy Ghost is not that Father, nor the self- 
same subsistent as that Father ; nor is the crea- 
tion of the human nature the only begetting, or 
the scriptural Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ; 
for, if this were really so, the Father would be 
sending forth the Father, and the Father would 
be proceeding from the Father, and the Son 
would be praying for all this. But these are 
absurdities too glaring to be indulged for a single 
moment by common sense : so that we conceive 
it must be as clear as the light of heaven, that 
the first and second persons of the Godhead are 
to each other a Father and a Son in the Divine 
essence." — Martin on the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ. 

Thus, then, from the import of these passages 
— and many others might be added, were it 
necessary — I think that it is established that the 
title Son of God is not an appellative of the 
human nature applied by metonymy to the Divine 
nature, as the objectors say, and that it cannot, 
on this hypothesis, be explained. As little truth 
will be found in another theory, adopted by 
those who admit the Divinity of our Lord, but 
deny his eternal filiation — that he is called "Son 
of God" on account of his incarnation: that in 
the Old Testament he was so called in anticipation 
of this event, and in the New because of the fact 
that he was God manifest in the flesh. 

As, however, all such persons acknowledge the 
title "Son of God" to bo a descriptive, not an 
arbitrary title, and that it has its foundation in 
some real relation; so, if the incarnation of 
Christ be the foundation of that titlo, it must be 



used with reference either to the nature in which 
he was incarnated, that is to say, his manhood; 
or to that which incarnated itself, that is to say, 
his Godhead; or to the action of incarnation, that 
is, the act of assuming our nature. If the first 
be allowed, then this is saying no more than that 
he is the Son of God, because of his miraculous 
conception in the womb of the virgin, which has 
been already refuted. If the second, then it is 
yielded that, with reference to the Godhead, he 
is the Son, which is what we contend for ; and it 
is allowed that the "holy thing," or offspring, 
born of Mary, is, therefore, called the Son of God, 
not because his humanity was formed in her 
womb immediately by God ; but, as it is expressly 
stated in Luke i. 35, because "the Holy Ghost 
shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
Highest shall overshadow thee," the effect of 
which would be the assumption of humanity by 
the Divine nature of him who is, in that nature, 
the Son ; and that the holy offspring should, on 
that account, be called the Son of God. This 
would fully allow the doctrine of Christ's Divine 
Sonship, and is, probably, the real import of the 
important passage referred to. 1 But if the title 
Son is given to Christ, neither with reference to 
the miraculous conception of the human nature, 
nor yet because the higher nature united to it in 
one person is, eminently and peculiarly, the Son 
of God ; then it only remains to those who refer 
the title to the incarnation of our Lord, to urge 
that it is given to him with reference to the act 
of incarnation, that is to say, the act of assuming 
our nature. Now it is impossible to maintain 
this, because it has no support from Scripture. 

1 Many interpreters understand by " the power of the 
Highest," which overshadowed the virgin, the second person 
of the Trinity, who then took part of our nature. See "SVolfii 
Cur. in loc. Most of them, however, refer both clauses to 
the Holy Spirit. But still, if the reason wby the " holy 
thing" which was to be born of Mary derived its special 
and peculiar sanctity from the personal union of the Divin- 
ity with the manhood, the reason of its being called the 
Son of God will be found ratber in that to which the 
humanity M-as thus united than in itself. Tho remarks of 
Professor Kidd, in his " Dissertation on tho Eternal Sonship 
of Christ," are also worthy consideration. "Our Lord's 
human nature had never subsistence by itself." "That 
nature never had personality of itself." " Hence our Lord 
is the Son of God, with respect to his Divine nature, which 
alone was capable of Sonship. Tho question to be decided 
is, what object was termed the Son of God? Was it tho 
human nature considered by itself? This it could not be, 
seeing that tho humanity never existed by itself without 
inhering in tho Divinity. Was it the humanity and Divin- 
ity when united, which, in consequence of their union, 
obtained this as a mere appellation? We apprehend that 
it was not. We conceive that the peculiarly appropriate 
name of our Lord's Divine person is Son of God — that his 
person was not changed by the assumption of humanity, 
and that it is his eternal person, In the complex natures 
of Divinity and humanity, which is denominated Son of 
God." 



312 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



The passage in Luke i. 35 has been adduced, hat 
that admits certainly only of one of the two 
interpretations above given. Either the corning 
of the Holy Ghost upon the virgin, and the over- 
shadowing of the power of the Highest, refer to 
the immediate production of the humanity by 
Divine power, so that for this reason he is called 
the Son of God, which might be allowed without 
excluding a higher and more emphatic reason 
for the appellation ; or it expresses the assump- 
tion of human nature through the "power of the 
Highest," by the Divine nature of Christ, so that 
"the holy offspring" should be called "the Son 
of God," not because a Divine person assumed 
humanity, but because that Divine person was 
antecedently the Son of God, and is spoken of as 
such by the prophets. The mere act of assuming 
our nature gives no idea of the relationship of a 
Son : it is neither a paternal nor a filial act in 
any sense, nor expresses any such relation. It 
was an act of the Son alone : " forasmuch as the 
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he 
also took part of the same ;" and, as his own 
act, it could never place him in the relation of 
Son to the Father. It was done, it is true, in 
pursuance of the will of the Father, who "sent 
him" on this errand of mercy into the world; 
but it was still an act done by the Son, and could 
not lay the foundation of a filial title and char- 
acter. This hypothesis cannot, therefore, be 
supported. If then the title "Son of God," as 
given to our Lord, is not used chiefly, probably 
not at all, with reference to his miraculous con- 
ception — if it is not an appellative of his human 
nature, occasionally applied to him when Divine 
acts and relations are spoken of, as any other 
human appellation, by metonymy, might be 
applied — if it is not given him simply because 
of his assuming our nature — if we find it so used 
that it can be fully explained by no office with 
which he is invested, and by no event of his 
mediatorial undertaking — it then follows that it 
is a title characteristic of his mode of existence 
in the Divine essence, and of the relation which 
exists between the first and second persons in 
the ever-blessed Trinity. Nor is it to be regarded 
as a matter of indifference whether we admit the 
eternal filiation of our Lord, provided we ac- 
knowledge his Divinity. It is granted that some 
divines, truly decided on this point, have rejected 
the Divine Sonship. But in this they have gone 
contrary to the judgment of the Churches of 
Christ in all ages; and they would certainly have 
been ranked among heretics in the first and 
purest times of the primitive Church, as Bishop 
Bull has largely and most satisfactorily shown in 
his "Judgment of the Catholic Church;" nor 
would their professions of faith in the Divinity 



[PART n. 

of Christ have secured them from the suspicion 
of being allies, in some sort, of the common 
enemies of the faith, nor have been sufficient to 
guard them from the anathemas with which the 
fathers so carefully guarded the sacred doctrine 
of Scripture respecting the person of our Lord. 
Such theologians have usually rejected the doc- 
trine, too, on dangerous grounds ; and have 
resorted to modes of interpretation so forced and 
unwarrantable, that, if turned against the doc- 
trines which they themselves hold sacred-, would 
tend greatly to unsettle them. In these respects 
they have often adopted the same modes of 
attack, and objections of the same character, as 
those which Arians and Socinians have wielded 



against the doctrine of the Trinity itself, and 
have thus placed themselves in suspicious com- 
pany and circumstances. The very allegation 
that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a mere 
speculation, of no importance provided his Di- 
vinity be held, is itself calculated to awaken 
vigilance, since the most important doctrines 
have sometimes been stolen away "while men 
have slept," and the plea which has lulled them 
into security has always been, that they were not 
fundamental. I would not, indeed, say that the 
doctrine in question is fundamental. I am not 
! indisposed to give up that point with Episcopius 
and Waterland, who both admitted the Divine 
Sonship, though I woiild not concede its funda- 
mental character on the same grounds as the 
former, but with the caution of the latter, who 
had views much more correct on the question of 
fundamental truths. But, though the Sonship 
of Christ may be denied by some who hold his 
Divinity, they do not carry out their own views 
into their logical conclusions, or it would appear 
that their notions of the Tbinitt greatly differ, 
in consequence, from those which are held by the 
believers in this doctrine ; and that on a point 
confessedly fundamental, they are, in some im- 
portant respects, at issue with the orthodox of 
all ages. This alone demands their serious reflec- 
tion, and ought to induce caution ; but other 
considerations are not wanting to show that 
points of great moment are involved in the 
denial or maintenance of the doctrine in question. 

1. The loose and general manner in which 
many passages of Scripture which speak of 
Christ as a Son must be explained by those who 
deny the Divine filiation of Christ, seems to 
sanction principles of interpretation which would 
be highly dangerous, or rather absolutely fatal, 
if generally applied to the Scriptures. 

2. The denial of the Divine Sonship destroys 
all relation among the persons of the Godhead ; 
for no other relation of the hypostases are 
mentioned in Scripture, save those which are 



CH. XII.] 

expressed by paternity, filiation, and procession : 
every other relation is merely economical; and 
these natural relations being removed, we must 
then conceive of the persons in the Godhead as 
perfectly independent of each other, a view 
which has a strong tendency to endanger the 
unity of the essence. 1 

3. It is the doctrine of the Divine paternity 
only which preserves the scriptural idea that the 
Father is the fountain of Deity, and, as such, the 
first, the original, the principle. Certainly he 
must have read the Scriptures to little purpose 
who does not perceive that this is their constant 
doctrine — that "of him are all things;" that 
though the Son is Creator, yet that it was "by 
the Son" the Father made the worlds ; and that, 
as to the Son, he himself has declared "that he 
lives by the Father," and that the Father hath 
given him to have life in himself, which can 
only refer to his Divine nature, nothing being 
the source of life in itself but what is Divine ; a 
view which is put out of all doubt by the decla- 
ration, that by the gift of the Father the Son 
hath life in himself, "as the Father hath life in 
himself." But where the essential paternity of 
the Father, and the correlative filiation of the 
Son are denied, these scriptural representations 
have no foundation in fact, and are incapable 
of interpretation. The term Son at once pre- 
serves the scriptural character of the Father, 
and sets up an everlasting barrier against the 
Arian heresy of inferiority of essence; for, as 



1 "According to the opinion of the ancients, which is also 
the voice of common sense, if there were two unbegotten 
or independent principles in the Divinity, the consequence 
would be, that not only the Father would be deprived of 
his preeminence, being of and from himself alone, but, 
also, that there would necessarily be two gods. On the 
other hand, supposing the subordination, by which the 
Father is God of himself, and the Son God of God, the 
doctors have thought both the Father's preeminence and 
the Divine monarchy safe." — Bishop Buix. 

"As it is admitted that there are three persons in the 
Godhead, these three must exist either independently of 
each other, or in related states. If they exist independently 
of each other, they are, then, each an independent person, 
and may act independently and separately from the rest: 
consequently, there would be three independent and sepa- 
rate deities existing in the Divine essence." — Kidd. 

The orthodox faith keeps us at the utmost distance from 
this error. " The Father," says Bishop Bull, " is the prin- 
ciple of the Son and Iloly Spirit, and both are propagated 
from him by an interior production, not au external one. 
Hence it is that they are not only of the Father, but in 
him, and the Father in thorn ; and that one person cannot 
be Beparate from another in the- holy Trinity as three 
human persons, or throe other subjects of tho same species 
are Beparate. This kind of existing in, if I may so say, 
our divines call circumincession, because by it some things 
are very much distinguished from ono another without 
separation: arc in, and, as it were, penetrate ono another 
Without confusion." — Judijnicnl of the Catholic Church. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



313 



Son, he must be of the same essence as the 
Father. 

4. The scriptural doctrines of the perfect 
equality of the Son, so that he is truly God, 
equal in glory and perfection to the Father, being 
of the same nature, and, at the same time, the 
subordination of the Son to the Father, so that 
he should be capable of being "sent," are only 
to be equally maintained by the doctrine of 
the Divine Sonship. According to those who 
deny this doctrine, the Son might as well be the 
first as the second person in the Godhead ; and 
the Father the second as well as the first : the 
Father might have been sent by the Son without 
incongruity ; or either of them by the Holy 
Spirit. These are most violent and repulsive 
conclusions, which the doctrine of the Sonship 
avoids, and thus proves its accordance with the 
Holy Scriptures. 

5. The love of the Father, in the gift of his 
Son, a doctrine so emphatically and so frequently 
insisted upon in Scripture, can have no place at 
all in the religious system of those who deny 
the relations of Father and Son to exist in 
the Godhead. This I take to be fatal to the 
doctrine ; for it insensibly runs into the Socinian 
heresy, and restricts the love of the Father, in 
the gift of his Son, to the gift of a man only, if 
the Sonship of Christ be human only ; and, in 
that case, the permission of the sufferings of 
Christ was no greater a manifestation of God's 
love to the world than his permitting any other 
good man to die for the benefit of his fellow- 
creatures — St. Paul, for instance, or any of the 
martyrs. Episcopius, though he contends 
against the doctrine of the Divine Sonship of 
our Lord being considered as fundamental, yet 
argues the truth of the doctrine on this very 
ground. 

"We have thus far adduced those passages of 
Scripture from which we believe it evident that 
something more is ascribed to Jesus Christ than 
can possibly belong to him under the considera- 
tion of man born of a virgin; nay, something 
is attributed to him which not obscurely argues 
that, before" he was born of the virgin, he had 
been, (fuisse atque extitisse,) and had existed as 
the Son of God the Father. The reasons derived 
from Scripture which seom to demonstrate this 
are the following : — 

"First, from John v. 18, and x. 33, it is appa- 
rent that Jesus Christ had spoken in siu-h a 
manner to the Jews, that they either understood 
or believed that nothing less than this was spoken 
by Christ, that he attributed to himself some- 
thing greater than could bo attributed to a 
human being," etc. After proceeding to oliu-i- 



314 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



date these two passages at some length, Episco- 
pius adds : 

" The second reason is, it is certain the charity 
and love of God is amazingly elevated and 
extolled, by which he sent his own and only- 
begotten Son into the world, and thus gave him 
up, even to the death of the cross, to save 
sinners, who are the sons of God's wrath. (John 
iii. 16: Eom. v. 10, and viii. 32 : 1 John iv. 9, 
10.) But if the only-begotten Son of God has no 
signification except Jesus with regard to his human- 
ity and his being born of a virgin, the reason is 
not so apparent why this love should be so 
amazingly enhanced as it is when God's only- 
begotten Son signifies the Son who was begotten of 
the Father before all ages. For that Son who was 
born of the Virgin Mary, was born of her for 
this very purpose — that he might be delivered to 
death for sinners. But what preeminence of 
love is there in the fact of God delivering this, 
his Son, to death, whom it was his will to be 
born of Mary, and to be conceived of his Holy 
Spirit, with the intention that he should die for 
sinners ? But if you form a conception of the 
Son of God, who was begotten of his Father before 
[ante secula) all worlds ; whom it was not com- 
pulsory to send into the world, and who was under 
no obligation to become man; whose dignity was 
greater than allowed him to be involuntarily sent 
or to come into flesh, much less that he should 
be delivered to death; nay, who, as the only- 
begotten and sole Son, appeared dearer to the 
Father than to be thrust out from him into this 
misery — when you have formed this conception 
in your mind, then will the splendor and glory 
of the Divine charity and love toward the human 
race shine forth with the greater intensity." — 
Episcopii, Inst. Theol. 

To the doctrine of our Lord's eternal Sonship 
some objections have been made, drawn from the 
supposed reason and nature of things ; but they 
admit of an easy answer. The first is, "If the 
Son be of the Father in any way whatsoever, 
there must have been a commencement of his 
existence." To this objection the following is a 
satisfactory answer : — 

"As sure, they are ready to argue, as every 
effect is posterior to its cause, so must Christ 
have been posterior to that God of whom he is 
the effect, or emanation, or offspring, or Son, or 
image, or by whatever other name you please to 
call him. Hence a Socinian writer says, ' The 
invention of men has been long enough upon the 
rack to prove, in opposition to common sense and 
reason, that an effect may be coeternal with the 
unoriginate cause that produced it. But the 
proposition has mystery and falsehood written 



[part II. 

in its forehead, and is only fit to be joined with 
transubstantiation, and other mysteries of the 
same nature.' If these terms are properly 
taken, it will be found that though every effect 
may be said to be posterior to its cause, it is 
merely in the order of nature, and not of time ; 
and, in point of fact, every effect, properly so 
called, is coexistent with its cause, and must, of 
necessity, exactly answer to it, both in magni- 
tude and duration ; so that an actually infinite 
and eternal cause implies an actually infinite 
and eternal effect. 

"Many seem to imagine, as the words cause 
and effect must be placed one after the other, 
and the thing intended by the latter is different 
from what is meant by the former, that, there- 
fore, a cause must precede its effect at least some 
very short time. But they ought to consider, 
that if any thing be a cause, it is a cause. It 
cannot be a cause, and the cause of nothing: 
no, not for the least conceivable space of time. 
Whatever effect it may produce hereafter, it is 
not the actual cause of it till it is actually in 
being ; nor can it be, in the very nature of things. 

"Now, suppose I should call the Son of God 
the infinite and eternal effect of an infinite and 
eternal cause : however the terms of the proposi- 
tion might be cavilled with, and however sophistry 
avail itself of the imperfection of human lan- 
guage and the ambiguity of words to puzzle the 
subject, in the sense in which I take the terms, 
cause and effect, the proposition is true, and 
cannot be successfully controverted. And though 
I would by no means affect such language, yet I 
should be justified in its use by the early ortho- 
dox writers of the Church, both Greek and 
Latin, 1 who do not hesitate to call the Father the 
cause of the Son ; though the Latins generally 
preferred using the term principium, which, in 
such a connection, is of the same import as cause. 
Nor can we consider the following words of our 
blessed Bedeemer in any other view: 'I live by 
the Father,' (John vi. 57,) and 'As the Father 
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son 
to have life in himself.' John v. 26. Such lan- 
guage can never be understood of the mere 
humanity of Christ. When the early ecclesiasti- 
cal writers used the terms in question, it was not 
with the most distant intention of intimating any 
inferiority of nature in the Son. And when they 
called him 'God of God,' they never meant to 
represent him as a creature. Therefore, it was 
added to the expression, in the Nicene Creed, 
' Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, 
not made, being of one substance,' or nature, 

l See Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicreanfe, and the notes of 
Bishop Pearson's most excellent work on the Deed. 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



315 



'with the Father and the Maker of all things.' 
They neither confound the persons nor divide 
the substance of the Godhead. And we shall 
soon see that, in this, they followed the obvious 
and undoubted meaning of the word of God. 
They made use of the very best terms they could 
find in human language to explain the truth of 
God, in a most important article of faith, and to 
defend it against the insidious attacks of heresy. 
And if those who affect to despise them would 
study their writings with candor, they would find 
that, though they were men, and as such liable 
to err, they were great men, and men who thought 
as well as wrote : who thought deeply on the 
things of God, and did not speak at random. 

"Some persons think they reduce the doctrine 
in question to an absurdity, by saying, 'If the 
Father generate the Son, he must either be 
always generating him, or an instant must be 
supposed when his generation was completed. 
On the former supposition, the Son is and must 
ever remain imperfect, and, in fact, ungenerated : 
on the latter, we must allow that he cannot be 
eternal.' No one can talk in this manner, who 
has not first confounded time with eternity, the 
creature with the Creator : beings whose exist- 
ence, and modes, and relations are swallowed up 
and lost in the Divine eternity and immensity, 
with him who is, in all essential respects, eternal 
and infinite. The orthodox maintain that the 
Son of God is what he is from everlasting, as 
well as the Father. His generation no more took 
place in any imaginary point of eternity than it 
took place in time. Indeed, all duration, which 
is commenced, is time, and time it must ever 
remain. Though it may never end, it can never 
be actual eternity; nor can any being, whose 
existence has commenced, ever become actually 
eternal. The thing implies a contradiction in 
terms. 

"The nature of God is perfect from everlast- 
ing ; and the generation of the Son of God was 
no voluntary and successive act of God, but 
something essential to the Godhead, and therefore 
natural and eternal. We may illustrate this 
great subject, though we can never fully compre- 
hend it. All natural agents, as we call them, 
act or operate uniformly and necessarily. If 
they should change their action or operation, we 
should immediately infer a change of their 
nature. For their existence, in a certain state, 
implies that action or operation. They act or 
operate by what wo call a necessity of nature, 
or, as any plain uneducated man would express 
himself, it is their nature so to do. Thus the 
fountain flows. Thus the sun shines. Thus the 
mirror reflects whatever is bofore it. No sooner 
did the fountain exist, in its natural state, than 



it flowed. No sooner did the sun exist, in its 
natural state, than it shone. No sooner did the 
mirror exist, in its natural state, than it reflected 
the forms placed before it. These actions or 
operations are all successive, and are measured 
by time, because the things from whence they 
result exist in time, and their existence is neces- 
sarily successive. But had the fountain existed 
from everlasting, in its natural state, from ever- 
lasting it must have flowed. Had the sun so 
existed, so it must have shone. Had the mirror 
so existed, so it must have reflected whatever 
was before it. The Son of God is no voluntary 
effect of the Father's power and wisdom, like the 
created universe, which once did not exist, and 
might never have existed, and must, necessarily, 
be ever confined within the bounds of time and 
space : he is the natural and necessary, and 
therefore the eternal and infinite birth of the 
Divine fecundity, the boundless overflow of the 
eternal fountain of all existence and perfection, 
the infinite splendor of the eternal sun, the un- 
spotted mirror and complete and adequate image, 
in whom may be seen all the fulness of the God- 
head. This places the orthodox faith at an equal 
distance from the Sabellian and Arian heresies, 
and will ever make that distance absolutely 
infinite. This is no figure of speech, but a most 
sober truth." — France's Three Discourses on the 
Person of Christ. 

In the eloquent and forcible passage just 
quoted, the opposition between a necessary and a 
voluntary effect is to be understood of arbitrary 
will ; for, otherwise, the ancients scrupled not to 
say, that the generation of the Son was with the 
will of the Father : some, that he could not but 
eternally will it, as being eternally good : others, 
that, since the will of God is God himself, as 
much as the wisdom of God is God himself, what- 
ever is the fruit and product of God, is the fruit 
and product of his will, wisdom, etc. ; and so the 
Son, being the perfect imago of the Father, is 
substance of substance, wisdom of wisdom, will 
of will, as he is light of light, and God of God, 
which is St. Austin's doctrine. That the genera- 
tion of the Son may be by necessity of nature, 
without excluding the concurrence or approbation 
of the will, in the sense of consent, approbation, 
and acquiescence, is shown by Dr. Waterland, in 
his "Defence of Queries," and to that the reader 
who is curious in such distinctions is referred. 
They are distinctions, however, the subtil iy of 
which will often be differently apprehended by 
different minds, and they are, therefore, Boaroely 
allowable, except whon used defensively, and to 
silence an opposer who resorts to subtilties for 
the propagation of error. The Burerook is the 
testimony of Con, whioh admits of no other eon- 



316 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



sistent interpretation than that above given. 
This being established, the incomprehensible and 
mysterious considerations connected with the 
doctrine must be left among those deep things 
of God -which, in the present state at least, we 
are not able to search and fathom. For this 
reason, the attempts which have been made to 
indicate, though faintly, the manner of the gene- 
ration of the Son, are not to be commended. 
Some of the Platonizing fathers taught that the 
existence of the Son flowed necessarily from the 
Divine intellect exerted on itself. The schoolmen 
agitated the question, whether the Divine gene- 
ration was effected by intellect or by will. The 
Father begetting a Son, the exact counterpart 
and equal of himself, by contemplating and exert- 
ing his intelligence upon himself, is the view 
advocated by some divines, both of the Komish 
and Protestant communions. Analogies have 
also been framed between the generation of the 
Son by the Father and the mind's generation of 
a conception of itself in thought. Some of these 
speculations are almost obsolete ; others continue 
to this day. It ought, however, to be observed, 
that they are wholly unconnected with the fact, 
as it is stated, authoritatively and doctrinally 
stated, in Scripture. These are atmospheric 
halos about the sun of revelation, which, in truth, 
are the product of a lower region, though they 
may seem to surround the orb itself. Of these 
notions Zanchius has well observed, "As we have 
no proof of these from the word of God, we must 
reject them as rash and vain, that is, if the thing 
be positively asserted so to be." Indeed, we may 
ask, with the prophet, "Who shall disclose his 
generation ?" On this subject, Cyril of Jerusa- 
lem wisely says, "Believe, indeed, that God has 
a Son ; but to know hoio this is possible be not 
curious. For if thou searchest, thou shalt not 
find. Therefore, elevate not thyself, (in the 
attempt,) lest thou fall. Be careful to under- 
stand those things alone which are delivered to 
thee as commands. First, declare to me who is 
the Father, and then thou wilt acknowledge the 
Son. But if thou canst not ascertain (cognoscere) 
the nature of the Father, display no curiosity 
about knowing the mode of the Son. With regard 
to thyself, it is sufficient for all the purposes of 
godliness to know that God has one only Son." 

Proved then, as I think it irrefragably is, by 
Scripture testimony, that the title "Son of God" 
contains a revelation of the Divinity of our Lord, 
as a person of the same nature and essence with 
the Father, we may proceed to another of the 
most emphatic and celebrated appellations of our 
blessed Saviour — "The Word." 

Under this title our Saviour is abruptly an- 
nounced in the introduction to St. John's Gospel, 



for that he is intended cannot be a matter of 
doubt. In the 5th verse, "the Word" is called 

j "the Light." In verse 7, John Baptist is said to 
bear witness of that "Light." Again, in verse 

! 14, the Word is said to have been made flesh, 
and to have dwelt among us ; and, in verse 15, 

' that " John bears witness of him." "The Word" 
and "the Light," to whom John bears witness, 
are names, therefore, of the same Being: and 
that Being is, in verse 17, declared to be Jesus 

; Christ. 1 

The manner in which St, John commences his 
Gospel is strikingly different from the introduc- 

| rions to the histories of Christ by the other 

' evangelists ; and no less striking and peculiar is 
the title under which he announces him — "The 

' Woed." It has, therefore, been a subject of 
much inquiry and discussion, from whence this 
evangelist drew the use of this appellation, and 
what reasons led him, as though intending to 
solicit particular attention, to place it at the very 
head of his Gospel. That it was for the purpose 

! of establishing an express opinion, as to the per- 
sonal character of him whom it is used to desig- 

, nate, is made more than probable from the pre- 

: dominant character of the whole Gospel, which 

: is more copiously doctrinal, and contains a record 

| more full of what Jesus "said," as well as "did," 

1 than the others. 

As to the source from which the term "Logos" 
was drawn by the apostles, some have held it to 
be taken from the Jewish Scriptures : others, 
from the Chaldee paraphrases : others, from Philo 
and the Hellenizing Jews. The most natural 
conclusion certainly appears to be, that as St. 
John was a plain, "unlearned" man, chiefly con- 
versant in the Holy Scriptures, he derived this 
term from the sacred books of his own nation, 
in which the Hebrew phrase Dabar Jehovah, the 
Word of Jehovah, frequently occurs in passages 
which must be understood to speak of a personal 
Word, and which phrase is rendered ?,6yoc Kvplov 
by the Septuagint interpreters. Certainly there 
is not the least evidence in his writings, or in his 
traditional history, that he ever acquainted him- 
self with Philo or with Plato ; and none, there- 
fore, that he borrowed the term from them, or 
used it in any sense approaching to or suggested 
by these refinements : — In the writings of St. Paul 
there are allusions to poets and philosophers : in 
those of St. John, none. We have already seen that 



l "p er rbv Aoyov intelligi Christum, caret dubio. Nam 
t. 6, 7. Scriptor dicit, Joannem Baptistam dehoc Ao; (J 
testimonium dixisse; constat autem eum de Christo dixisse 
testimonium; et t. 14, sequitur, Aoyov hominem esse 
factum, et Apostolos hujus Aoyov, hominis facti. Tidisse 
dignitatem ; atqui Christi majestatem quotidie oculis vide- 
bant" — Rosexjit-llzr. 



OH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



317 



the Hebrew Scriptures contain frequent intima- 
tions of a distinction of persons in the Godhead : 
that one of these Divine persons is called Jeho- 
vah ; and though manifestly represented as exist- 
ing distinct from the Father, is yet arrayed with 
attributes of Divinity, and was acknowledged by 
the ancient Jews to be, in the highest sense, 
"their God," the God with whom, through all 
their history, they chiefly u had to do." This 
Divine person we have already proved to have 
been spoken of by the prophets as the future 
Christ : we have shown, too, that the evangelists 
and apostles represent Jesus as that Divine per- 
son of the prophets ; and if, in the writings of 
the Old Testament, he is also called "the Word," 
the application of this term to our Lord is natu- 
rally accounted for. It will then appear to be a 
theological, not a, philosophic appellation, and one 
which, previously even to the time of the apostle, 
had been stamped with the authority of inspira- 
tion. It is not, indeed, frequently used in the 
Old Testament, which may account for its not 
being adopted as a prominent title of Christ by 
the other evangelists and apostles ; but that, not- 
withstanding this infrequency, it is thus used by 
St. John, has a sufficient reason, which shall be 
presently adduced. 

In Genesis xv. 1, we are told that "the Word 
of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, say- 
ing, Fear not, Abram : I am thy shield and thy 
exceeding great reward." Here the Word of 
the Lord is the speaker : " the Word came, say- 
ing:" a mere word may be spoken or said; but 
a personal Word only can say, "/am thy shield." 
The pronoun / refers to the whole phrase, "the 
Word of Jehovah;" and if & personal Word be 
not understood, no person at all is mentioned by 
whom this message is conveyed, and whom 
Abram, in reply, invokes as "Lord God." The 
same construction is seen in Psalm xviii. 30, 
" The Word of the Lord is tried : he is a buckler 
to all that trust in him." Here the pronouns 
refer to "the Word of the Lord," in the first 
clause ; nor is there any thing in the context to 
lead us to consider the Word mentioned to be a 
grammatical word, a verbal communication of 
the will of another, in opposition to a personal 
Word. This passage is, indeed, less capable of 
being explained on the supposition of an ellipsis, 
than that in Genesis. In this personal sense, 
also, 1 Sam. iii. 21 can only bo naturally inter- 
preted. "And tho Lord appeared again in Shi- 
loli : for the Lord revealed (showed) himself to 
Samuel in Shiloh, by the Word of the Lord." 
Here it is first declared that tho Lord appeared: 
then follows tho manner of his appearance, or 
manifestation, "by tho Word of the Lord." In 
what manner could he appear except by his per- 



sonal Word in vision ? Again, a comparison of 
two passages will make it probable that the per- 
sonal Word is intended in some passages, and 
was so understood by the ancient Jews, where 
there are no marked circumstances of construc- 
tion to call our attention to it. In 2 Sam. vii. 
21, we find, "For thy Word's sake, and accord- 
ing to thine own heart, hast thou done all these 
things." But in the parallel passage, in 1 Chron. 
xvii. 19, it is read, " Lord, for thy servant's 
sake, and according to thine own heart, hast 
thou done all this greatness." Servant is un- 
questionably an Old Testament appellation of 
Messiah ; and not a few passages might be ad- 
duced where the phrases "for thy servant's 
sake," "for thy name's sake," indicate & media- 
torial character vested in some exalted and Di- 
vine personage. The comparison of these two 
passages, however, is sufficient to show that a 
personal character is given to the Word men- 
tioned in the former. 

All that has been said by opposing criticism, 
upon these and a few other passages in which 
the phrase occurs, amounts to no more than that 
they may be otherwise interpreted, by consider- 
ing them as elliptical expressions. The sense 
above given is, however, the natural and obvious 
one ; and if it also accounts better for the fre- 
quent use of the terms "Word," "Word of the 
Lord," among the ancient Jewish writers, this is 
an additional reason why it should be preferred. 
The Targumists use it with great frequency; 
and should we even suppose Philo and the 
Hellenistic Jews to have adopted the term Logos 
from Plato and the Greeks, yet the favoritism 
of that term, so to speak, and the higher attri- 
butes of glory and Divinity with which they in- 
vest their Logos, is best accounted for by the 
correspondence of this term with one which 
they had found before, not only among their 
own interpreters, but in the sacred writings 
themselves. 

Reference has been made to the Targums, and 
they are in further evidence of the theological 
origin of this appellation. The Targums, or 
Chaldee paraphrases of the Old Testament, 
were composed for the use of the common peo- 
ple among the Jews, who, after their return from 
captivity, did not understand the original Ile- 
brow. They were read in the synagogues every 
Sabbath day, and with the phrases they contain 
all Jews would, of course, be familiar. Now, 
in such of these paraphrases as are extant, so 
frequently does tho phraso " the Word of Jeho- 
vah" occur, that in almost every place ay here 
Jehovah is mentioned in the Old Testament as 
holding any intercourse with men, this circum- 
locution is usod. "So C\od created man in his 



318 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



own image," is, in the Jerusalem Targum, " The 
Word of Jehovah created man." "Adam and 
Eve heard the voice of the Lord God," is para- 
phrased, "they heard the voice of the Word of 
the Lord God." "The Lord thy God is he 
which goeth before thee," is, in the Targum, "Je- 
hovah thy God, his Word goeth before thee." 
The Targumists read, for "I am thy shield," 
Gen. xv. 1, "My Word is thy shield;" for "Is- 
rael shall be saved in the Lord," Isa. xlv. 17, 
"by the Word of the Lord;" for "I am with 
thee," Jer. i. 8, "My Word is with thee;" and 
in Psalm ex. 1, instead of "the Lord said unto 
my Lord," they read, "the Lord said unto his 
Word;" and so in a great number of places. 

The Socinian answer is, that this is an idiom 
of the Chaldee language, and that "the word of 
a person is merely synonymous to himself." It 
must certainly be allowed that the Jlemra of the 
Chaldee paraphrasts has not in every case a 
personal sense, nor, indeed, has Logos, or Word, 
by which it may be translated ; but, as the lat- 
ter is capable of being used in a personal sense, 
so is the former ; and, if passages can be 
found in the Targums where it is evident that it 
is used personally, and as distinct from God the 
Father, and cannot, without absurdity, be sup- 
posed to be used otherwise, the objection is fully 
invalidated. This has, I think, been very satis- 
factorily proved. So in one of the above in- 
stances, "They heard the voice of the Word of 
the Lord God walking in the garden." Here 
walking is undoubtedly the attribute of a person, 
and not of a mere voice ; and that the person re- 
ferred to is not the Father, appears from the 
author, Tzeror Hammor, who makes this obser- 
vation on the place: "Before they sinned, they 
saw the glory of the blessed God speaking with 
him, that is, with God ; but after their sin they 
only heard the voice walking." A trifling re- 
mark; but sufficient to show that the Jewish 
expositors considered the voice as a distinct per- 
son from God. 

The words of Elijah, 1 Kings xviii. 24, '"'I will 
call on the name of the Lord," etc., are thus para- 
phrased by Jonathan: "I will pray in the name 
of the Lord, and he shall send his Word." The 
paraphrast could not refer to any message from 
God ; for it was not an answer by word, but by 
fire, that Elijah expected. It has never been 
pretended, either by Socinians or by the ortho- 
dox, that God the Father is said to be sent. If 
there be but one Divine person, by whom is he 
sent? 

We learn from Gen. xvi. 7, etc., that "the An- 
gel of the Lord found Hagar by a fountain of 
water;" that he said, "I will multiply thy seed ex- 
ceedingly," and that "she called the name of Je- 



hovah that spake to her, Thou God seest me." It 
is evident that Hagar considered the person who 
addressed her as Divine. Philo asserts that it 
was the Word who appeared to her. Jonathan 
gives the same view. " She confessed before the 
Lord Jehovah, whose Word had spoken to her." 
With this the Jerusalem Targum agrees: "She 
confessed and prayed to the Word of the Lord 
who had appeared to her." It is in vain to say, 
in the Socinian sense, that God himself is here 
meant; for the paraphrasts must have known 
from the text that the person spoken of is called 
an angel. If the Father be meant, how is he 
called an angel? 

"They describe the Word as a Mediator. It 
is said, Deut. iv. 7, 'For what nation is there so 
great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord 
our God is in all things that ice call upon him for f 
Jonathan gives the following paraphrase of the 
passage : ' God is near in the name of the Word 
of the Lord.' Again, we find this paraphrase on 
Hos. iv. 9, ' God will receive the prayer of Israel 
by his Word, and have mercy upon them, and 
will make them by his Word like a beautiful fig 
tree.' And on Jer. xxix. 14, ' I will be sought 
by you in my Word, and I will be inquired of 
through you by my Word.' According to the 
Jerusalem Targum, on Gen. xxi. 33, Abraham at 
Beersheba ' prayed in the name of the Word of 
the Lord, the God of the world.' But it is in- 
conceivable that the paraphrasts did not here 
mean to describe the Word as a Mediator ; es- 
pecially as we know that the ancient Jews, when 
supplicating God, entreated that he would 'look 
on the face of his anointed.' 

"They speak of atonement as made by this 
Memra. On Deut. xxxii. 43, Jonathan observes, 
' God will atone by his Word for his land, and 
for his people, even a people saved by the Word 
of the Lord.' 

"They describe the Memra as a Redeemer, and 
sometimes as the Messiah. These words, Gen. 
xlix. 18, '/ have waited for thy salvation,'' are 
thus paraphrased in the Jerusalem Targum: 
' Our father Jacob said thus, My soul expects 
not the redemption of Gideon the son of Joash, 
which is a temporary salvation; nor the re- 
demption of Samson, which is a transitory sal- 
vation ; but the redemption which thou didst 
promise should come through thy Memra to thy 
people. This salvation my soul waits for.' In 
the blessing of Judah (vers. 10-12) particular 
mention is made of the King Messiah. It is a 
striking proof that by the Memra they meant 
him who was to appear as the Messiah, that in 
the Targum of Jonathan verse 18 is thus ren- 
dered : ' Our father Jacob said, I do not expect 
the deliverance of Gideon the son of Joash, which 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



319 



is a temporal salvation ; nor that of Samson the 
son of Manoah, which is a transient salvation. 
But I expect the redemption of the Messiah, the 
Son of David, who shall come to gather to him- 
self the children of Israel.' It is evident that 
the one paraphrast has copied from the other; 
and as the one puts Messiah for Memra, it cannot 
well be denied that they had considered both 
terms as denoting the same person. 

"They describe this Memra as only-begotten, 
and, in this character, as the Creator. That 
remarkable verse, Gen. iii. 22, 'The Lord God said, 
Behold, the man is become as one of us,' is para- 
phrased in a very singular manner: 'The Word 
of the Lord said, Behold, Adam whom I have 
created is the only-begotten in the world, as I am 
the only -begotten in the highest heavens.' The 
language here ascribed to the Memra, with 
what reference to the text avails not in the pre- 
sent inquiry, is applicable to a person only ; and 
it will not be pretended by our opponents that it 
can apply to the Father. The person intended 
was believed to be ' the only-begotten Word.' 
How nearly does this language approach to that 
of inspiration ! l In the beginning ivas the Word. 
All things were made by him. We beheld his glory, 
the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.' 
John i. 1, 3, 14. 

"If, therefore, the paraphrasts describe the 
Memra as one sent, as a Mediator, as one by 
whom atonement is made, as the Redeemer and 
the Messiah, and as only-begotten, it is undeni- 
able that they do not mean God the Father. If, 
notwithstanding, they ascribe personal and Divine 
characters to the Word, they must mean a dis- 
tinct person in the Divine essence." — Jamieson's 
Vindication. 

The same personality and the same distinction 
we find in the passage, "God came to Abime- 
lech:" in the Targum, "his Word came from 
the face of God to Abimelech." Equally express 
is the personal distinction in Psalm ex. 1, "Jeho- 
vah said unto his Word, Sit thou at my right 
hand." Here the Word cannot be the Jehovah 
that speaks, and a person only could sit at his 
right hand. This passage, too, proves that the 
ancient Jews applied the term Word to the 
Messiah ; for, as we may learn from our Lord's 
conversation with the Pharisees, it was a received 
opinion that this passage was spoken of tho 
Messiah. 

Now, as somo of the Targums still extant are 
older than tho Christian era, and contain the 
interpretations of preceding paraphrases now 
lost; and as there is so constant an agreement 
among them in tho use of this phrase, we can be 
at no loss to discover tho source whence St. John 
derived the appellative Logos. Ho had louud it 



in the Hebrew Scriptures, and he had heard it, 
in the Chaldee paraphrases, read in the syna- 
gogues, by which it was made familiar to every 
Jew. Dr. P. Smith, in his Scripture Testimony, 
hesitates as to the personal sense of the Memra 
of the Chaldean paraphrasts, and inclines to 
consider it as used in the sense of a reciprocal 
pronoun, denoting, in its usual application to 
the Divine Being, God his very self. On this 
supposition it is, however, impossible to interpret 
some of the passages above given. Its primary 
import, he says, "is that, whatever it may be, 
which is the medium of communicating the mind 
and intentions of one person to another." The 
Jews of the same age, or a little after, and Philo, 
he admits, used the term Word with a personal 
reference, for such "an extension and reference 
of the term would flow from the primary signifi- 
cation, a medium of rational communication;" 
but if Philo and those Jews thus extended the 
primary meaning of this word, why might not 
the Chaldee paraphrasts extend it before them ? 
They did not invent the term, and affix to it its 
primary meaning. They found it in the Chaldee 
tongue, as we find Word in English; and that 
they sometimes use it in its primary sense is no 
proof at all that they did not use it also in a 
personal or extended one. That a second Jeho- 
vah is mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures as the 
medium of communication with men cannot be 
denied ; and Memra would therefore be, accord- 
ing to this explanation of its primary meaning, 
a most fit term to express his person and office. 
It is, also, a strong evidence in favor of the 
personal sense of this term, that "Maimonides 
himself, anxious as he was to obscure all those 
passages of Scripture that imply a Divine plural- 
ity, and to conceal every evidence of the Jews 
having ever held this doctrine, had not boldness 
enough to assert that with the Chaldee in- 
terpreters the Word of God was merely ' synony- 
mous to God' himself. He knew that the Tar- 
gums afforded such unquestionable evidence of 
the introduction of a distinct person under this 
designation, that every one of his countrymen 
who was in the least acquainted with them 
would give him the lie. Therefore he finds him- 
self reduced to the miserable shift of pretending 
that, when the paraphrasts speak of the Word of 
the Lord, and use this expression where tho 
name of God occurs in the original, they mean 
to describe a created angel." x 

"Upon tho whole, then," says Dr. Laurenoe, 
"how are wo to determine the senso of this 
singular phraso ? Although wo consider it neither 



i Et fuit Verbum Domini ad we, eto, Fieri qnoque po- 
test meo judicio ul Onkeloa per vooem Elohim, Ajxgelam 
latellexerlt, eto. {Man Nevochim, par. i. c, 27, p. 38.) 



320 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



as a reciprocal, nor as intended to designate the 
second person in the Trinity, who, becoming in- 
carnate, lived and died for us, (of which perhaps 
the Targumists themselves might have had, at 
best, but indistinct or even incorrect ideas,) yet 
may we most probably regard it, in its general 
use, as indicative of a Divine person. That it 
properly means the Word of the Lord, or his will 
declared by a verbal communication, and that it 
is sometimes literally so taken, cannot be denied, 
but it seems impossible to consult the numerous 
passages where personal characteristics are attri- 
buted to it, and to conceive that it does not 
usually point out a real person. Whether the 
Targumist contemplated this hypostatical Word 
as a true subsistence in the Divine natvire, or as 
a distinct emanation of Deity, it may be useless 
to inquire, because we are deficient in data 
adequate to a complete decision of the question." 
— Dissertation. 

Philo and the philosophic Jews may, therefore, 
be well spared in the inquiry as to the source 
from whence St. John derives the appellative 
Logos. Whether the Logos of Philo be a per- 
sonified attribute or a person has been much dis- 
puted, but is of little consequence on this point. 
It may, however, be observed, that as the evi- 
dence predominates in favor of the personality of 
the Logos of Philo in numerous passages of his 
writings, this will also show that not only the 
Jewish writers who composed the paraphrases, 
and the common people among the Jews, in con- 
sequence of the Targums being read in the syna- 
gogues, but also those learned men who addicted 
themselves to the study of the Greek philoso- 
phy, were familiar with the idea of a Logos as 
a person distinct from God, yet invested with 
Divine attributes, and performing Divine works. 
The question as to Philo is not whether he some- 
times speaks of a personified Logos, that is, of 
an attribute or conception of God, arrayed in 
poetic, personal properties : this is granted ; but 
whether he also speaks of a Logos who is a real 
and a Divine person. Now, when he calls this 
Logos God, a second God, the Son of God, the 
first-begotten, the beloved Son ; speaks of him 
as superior to angels, as the Creator of the world, 
as seeing all things, as the Governor and Sus- 
tainer, as a Messenger, as the Shepherd of the 
flock ; of men being freed from their sins by him ; 
as the true High-Priest, as a Mediator, and in 
other similar and personal terms, which may all be 
verified by consulting his writings, or the selections 
given in Kidd's Demonstration, Allix's Judgment, 
Bryant's Philo, Laurence's Dissertation, and 
other works; he cannot, by any possibility of 
construction, be supposed to personify the mere 
attribute of the reason or wisdom of God, or any 



[PART II. 



conception and operation of the Divine intellect. 
This may be the only Logos of Plato ; for, though 
the Christianized Platonists, of a lower period, 
used this term in a personal sense, there is but 
slender evidence to conclude that Plato used it 
as the name of a person distinct from God. 
Certain it is that the Logos of Philo is arrayed 
in personal characters, which are not found in 
the writings of Plato : a fact which will with 
great difficulty be accounted for, upon the suppo- 
sition that the Jewish philosopher borrowed his 
notions from the Greek. Philo says, that "the 
Father has bestowed upon this Prince of angels 
his most ancient Logos, that he should stand as a 
Mediator, to judge between the creature and the 
Creator. He, therefore, intercedes with him who 
is immortal, in behalf of mortals ; and, on the 
other hand, he acts the part of an ambassador, 
being sent from the supreme King to his subjects. 
And this gift he so willingly accepts, as to glory 
in it, saying, I have stood between God and you, 
being neither unbegotten as God, nor begotten like 
mortals, but one in the middle, between two 
extremes, acting the part of a hostage with 
both : with the Creator, as a pledge that he will 
never be provoked to destroy or desert the 
world, so as to suffer it to run into confusion ; 
and, with creatures, to give them this certain 
hope, that God, being reconciled, will never 
cease to take care of his own workmanship. 
For I proclaim peace to the creation from that 
God who removes war, and introduces and pre- 
serves peace for ever." Now, when he expresses 
himself in this manner, who can reconcile this 
to a mere personification from the Greek philo- 
sophy ? or suppose that Philo obtained from that 
ideas so evangelical, that, were there not good 
evidence that he was not acquainted with Christ- 
ianity, we should rather conceive of him as of 
"a scribe," so far as this passage goes, "well 
instructed" in the kingdom of heaven? Even 
Dr. Priestley acknowledges that Philo "made 
a much more substantial personification of the 
Logos than any of the proper Platonists had 
clone." [Early Opinions.) Substantial, indeed, 
it is; for although, in some passages, in the 
vigor of his discursive and allegorizing genius, 
"he enshrines his Logos behind such a veil of 
fancy, that we can scarcely discern his person in 
the sanctuary," yet in the above, and many 
other passages, "he draws aside the veil and 
shows him to us in his full proportions." (Whit- 
aker's Origin of Arianism.) For what conceiv- 
able attribute of Deity, or ideal thing whatever, 
could any writer, allegorist as he might be, not 
insanely raving, call "Prince of angels," "Medi- 
ator," "Intercessor," "neither unbegotten as 
God, nor begotten like mortals," "an Ambassa- 



en. xii.] 

dor" sent from God to men, interposing between 
an offended God to restrain his anger, and to 
give "peace" to the world? Who could speak 
of these attributes or idealities in language 
anticipatory of an incarnation, as "a man of 
God, immortal and incorruptible," as "the man 
after the image of God," or ascribe to him a 
name "unspeakable and incomprehensible," and 
affirm that he is a "fabricator," or Creator, and 
"Divine, who will lie up close to the Father," 
exactly where St. John places him, "in the very 
bosom of the Father ?" For, however mysteri- 
ously Philo speaks in other passages, he says 
nothing to contradict these, and they must be 
taken as they are. They express a real person- 
ality, and they show, at the same time, that they 
could not be borrowed from Plato. It is not 
necessary to enter into the question whether that 
philosopher ascribed a real personality to his 
Logos or not. If he gives him a real and Divine 
personality, then the inference will be, that he 
derived his notion from the Jews, or from ancient 
patriarchal tradition; and it would be most 
natural for Philo, finding a personal and Divine 
Logos in Plato, to enlarge the scanty conceptions 
of the philosopher from the theology of his own 
country. On the other hand, if we suppose the 
Logos of Plato to be a mere personification, either 
Philo must have improved it into a real person, 
consistent with his own religion ; or, sometimes 
philosophizing on a mere personified Logos, and 
sometimes introducing the personal Logos of his 
own nation and native schools, we have the key to 
all those passages which would appear inconsist- 
ent with each other, if interpreted only of one 
and the same subject, and if he were regarded as 
speaking exclusively either of a personified or a 
real Logos. "From all the circumstances, it 
seems to be the most reasonable conclusion, that 
the leading acceptation of the Memra or Logos 
among the Jews of this middle age was to 
designate an intermediate agent; that, in the 
sense of a Mediator between God and man, it 
became a recognized appellation of the Messiah ; 
that the personal doctrine of the Word was the 
one generally received ; and that the conceptual 
notion which Philo interweaves with the other 
was purely his own invention, the result of his 
theological philosophy." — Dr. Smith's Person of 
Christ. 

As the doctrine of a personal Logos was not 
derived by Philo from Platonism, so his own 
writings, as decidedly as the reason of the case 
itself, will show, that the source from which he 
did derive it was the Scriptures and the Chaldoe 
paraphrases, or, in other words, the established 
theology of his nation. Philo had not suffered 
the doctrine of the Hebrew Scriptures, of a 
21 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



321 



Jehovah acting in the name and under the com- 
mission of another Jehovah as well as his own, 
to go unnoticed. The passages of the Old Testa- 
ment in which a personal Word, the Dabar 
Jehovah, occurs, had not been overlooked, nor 
the more frequent use of an equivalent phrase in 
the Memra of the paraphrasts. "There is a 
time," he observes, "when he (the holy Logos) 
inquires of some, as of Adam, Where art thou?" 
exactly corresponding with the oldest Targumists, 
"The Word of the Lord called to Adam." 
Again, with reference to Abraham and Lot, — 
"of whom (the Logos) it is said the sun came 
out upon the earth, and Lot entered into Sijor, 
and the Lord rained brimstone and fire upon 
Sodom and Gomorrah. For the Logos of God, 
when he comes out to our earthly system, assists 
and helps those who are related to virtue," etc. 
So by Onkelos and Jonathan, the appearances 
of God to Abram are said to be appearances of 
the Word, and twice in the fifteenth chapter of 
Genesis, "the Word of the Lord" is said to come 
to Abraham. The Being who appeared to Hagar, 
of whom she said, "Thou God seest me," Philo 
also calls the Logos. The Jehovah who stood 
above the ladder of Jacob and said, "I am the 
Lord God of Abraham thy father," has the same 
appellation, and he who spake to Moses from the 
bush. It is thus that Philo accords with the 
most ancient of the interpreters of his nation in 
giving the title Memra, Logos, or Word, to the 
ostensible Deity of the Jewish dispensation, in 
which, too, they were authorized by the use of 
the same term, in the same application, by the 
sacred writers themselves. Why, then, resort to 
Plato, when the source of the Logos of Philo is 
so plainly indicated ? and why suppose St. John 
to have borrowed from Philo, when the Logos 
was an established form of theological speech, 
and when the sources from which Philo derived 
it, the Scriptures and the paraphrases, were as 
accessible to the apostle as to the philosophical 
Jew of Alexandria ? 

As Philo mingled Platonic speculations with 
his discourses on the real Logos of his national 
faith, without, however, giving up personality and 
Divinity, so the Jews of his own age mingled 
various crude and darkening comments with the 
same ancient faith drawn from the Scriptures, 
and transmitted with the purer parts of their 
tradition. The paraphrases and writings of 
Philo remain, however, a striking monument of 
the existence of opinions as to a distinction of 
persons in the Godhead, and the Divine oharaoter 
of a Mediator and interposing agent between 
God and man, as indicated in their Scriptures, 
and preserved by their thoologians. 

Celebrated as this title of the Logos was in 



322 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[part rr. 



the Jewish theology, it is not, however, the ap- 
pellation by which the Spirit of inspiration has 
chosen that our Saviour should be principally 
designated. It occurs but a very few times, and 
principally and emphatically in the introduction 
to St. John's Gospel. A cogent reason can be 
given why this apostle adopts it, and we are not 
without a, probable reason why, in the New Tes- 
tament, the title Son of God should have been 
preferred, which is, likewise, a frequent title of 
the Logos in the writings also of Philo. 

"Originating from the spiritual principle of 
connection between the first and the second 
Being in the Godhead ; marking this by a spiritual 
idea of connection ; and considering it to be as 
close and as necessary as the Word is to the 
energetic mind of God, which cannot bury its 
intellectual energies in silence, but must put 
them forth in speech, it is too spiritual in itself 
to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. 
If with so full a reference to our bodily ideas, 
and so positive a filiation of the second Being to 
the first, we have seen the grossness of Arian 
criticism, endeavoring to resolve the doctrine into 
the mere dust of a figure, how much more ready 
Would it have been to do so, if we had only such 
a spiritual denomination as this for the second ! 
This would certainly have been considered by it 
as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and 
therefore too evanescent for equal Divinity." — 
Whitakbr's Origin of Arianism. 

Of the reason of its occasional use by St. 
John, a satisfactory account may also be given. 
The following is a clear abridgment of the ampler 
discussions on this subject which have employed 
many learned writers. 

"Not long after the writings of Philo were 
published, there arose the Gnostics, a sect, or 
rather a multitude of sects, who, having learnt in 
the same Alexandrian school to blend the princi- 
ples of oriental philosophy with the doctrine of 
Plato, formed a system most repugnant to the 
simplicity of the Christian faith. It is this 
system which Paul so often attacks under the 
name of 'false philosophy, strife of words, end- 
less genealogies, science, falsely so called.' The 
foundation of the Gnostic system was the intrinsic 
and incorrigible depravity of matter. Upon this 
principle they made a total separation between 
the spiritual and material world. Accounting it 
impossible to educe out of matter any thing 
which was good, they held that the Supreme 
Being, who presided over the innumerable spirits 
that were emanations from himself, did not make 
this earth, but that a spirit of an inferior nature, 
very far removed in character as well as in rank 
from the Supreme Being, formed matter into that 
order which constitutes the world, and gave life 



to the different creatures that inhabit the earth. 
They held that this inferior spirit was the ruler 
of the creatures whom he had made, and they 
considered men, whose souls he imprisoned in 
earthly tabernacles, as experiencing under his 
dominion the misery which necessarily arose 
from their connection with matter, and as 
estranged from the knowledge of the true God. 
Most of the later sects of the Gnostics rejected 
every part of the Jewish law, because the books 
of Moses gave a view of the creation inconsistent 
with their system. But some of the earlier sects, 
consisting of Alexandrian Jews, incorporated a 
respect for the law with the principles cf their 
system. They considered the Old Testament 
dispensation as granted by the Demiurgus, the 
maker and ruler of the world, who was incapable, 
from his want of power, of delivering those who 
received it from the thraldom of matter; and 
they looked for a more glorious messenger, 
whom the compassion of the Supreme Being was 
to send for the purpose of emancipating the 
human race. Those Gnostics who embraced 
Christianity, regarded the Christ as this Messen- 
ger, an exalted iEon, who, being in some manner 
united to the man Jesus, put an end to the 
dominion of the Demiurgus, and restored the 
souls of men to communion with God. It was 
natural for the Christian Gnostics who had re- 
ceived a Jewish education to follow the steps of 
Philo, and the general sense of their countrymen, 
in giving the name Logos to the Demiurgus. 
And as Christos was understood from the begin- 
ning of our Lord's ministry to be the Greek 
word equivalent to the Jewish name Messiah, 
there came to be, in their system, a direct oppo- 
sition between Christos and Logos. The Logos 
was the maker of the world : Christos was the 
JEon sent to destroy the tyranny of the Logos. 

"One of the first teachers of this system was 
Cerinthus. "We have not any particular account 
of all the branches of his system ; and it is pos- 
sible that we may ascribe to him some of those 
tenets by which later sects of Gnostics were dis- 
criminated. But we have authority for saying 
that the general principle of the Gnostic scheme 
was openly taught by Cerinthus before the publi- 
cation of the Gospel of John. The authority is 
that of Irenseus, a bishop who lived in the second 
century, who in his youth had heard Polycarp, 
the disciple of the Apostle John, and who retained 
the discourses of Polycarp in his memory till his 
death. There are yet extant of the works of 
Irenseus, five books which he wrote against 
heresies, one of the most authentic and valuable 
monuments of theological erudition. In one 
place of that work he says, that Cerinthus taught 
in Asia that the world was not made by the 



CH. XII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



323 



supreme God, but by a certain power very- 
separate and far removed from the Sovereign of 
the universe, and ignorant of his nature. (Irbn. 
contra Hcer. lib. iii. cap. xi. 1.) In another 
place he says, that John the apostle wished, by 
his Gospel, to extirpate the error which had been 
spread among men by Cerinthus ; (Irbn. contra 
Ilcer. lib. i. xxvi. 1 ;) and Jerome, who lived in 
the fourth century, says that John wrote his 
Gospel at the desire of the bishops of Asia, 
against Cerinthus and other heretics, and chiefly 
against the doctrines of the Ebionites, then spring- 
ing up, who said that Christ did not exist before 
he was born of Mary. (Jerom. De Vit Illust. 
cap. ix.) 

" From the laying these accounts together, it 
appears to have been the tradition of the Chris- 
tian Church, that John, who lived to a great age, 
and who resided at Ephesus, in proconsular Asia, 
was moved by the growth of the Gnostic heresies, 
and by the solicitations of the Christian teachers, 
to bear his testimony to the truth in writing, and 
particularly to recollect those discourses and 
actions of our Lord which might furnish the 
clearest refutation of the persons who denied his 
preexistence. This tradition is a key to a great 
part of his Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 
had given a detail of those actions of Jesus which 
are the evidences of his Divine mission ; of those 
events in his life upon earth which are most 
interesting to the human race ; and of those 
moral discourses in which the wisdom, the grace, 
and the sanctity of the Teacher, shine with united 
lustre. Their whole narration implies that Jesus 
was more than man. But as it is distinguished 
by a beautiful simplicity, which adds very much 
to their credit, as historians, they have not, with 
the exception of a few incidental expressions, 
formally stated the conclusion that Jesus was 
more than man, but have left the Christian world 
to draw it for themselves from the facts narrated, 
or to receive it by the teaching and the writings 
of the apostles. John, who was preserved by 
God to see this conclusion, which had been drawn 
by the great body of Christians, and had been 
established in the epistles, denied by different 
heretics, brings forward, in the form of a history 
of Jesus, a view of his exalted character, and 
draws our attention particularly to the truth of 
that which had been denied. "When you come 
to analyze the Gospel of John, you will find that 
the first eighteen verses contain the positions laid 
down by the apostle, in order to meet the errors 
of Cerinthus: that these positions, which aro 
merely affirmed in the introduction, are proved 
in the progress of the Gospel, by the testimony 
of John the Baptist, and by the words and the 
actions of our Lord ; and that after tho proof is 



concluded by the declaration of Thomas, who, 
upon being convinced that Jesus had risen, said 
to him, 'My Lord, and my God,' John sums up 
the amount of his Gospel in these few words : 
'These are written that ye might believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:' i. e., that 
Jesus and the Christ are not distinct persons, 
and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The 
apostle does not condescend to mention the name 
of Cerinthus, because that would have preserved, 
as long as the world lasts, the memory of a name 
which might otherwise be forgotten. But 
although there is dignity and propriety in omit- 
ting the mention of his name, it was necessary, 
in laying down the positions that were to meet 
his errors, to adopt some of his words, because 
the Christians of those days would not so readily 
have applied the doctrine of the apostle to the 
refutation of those heresies which Cerinthus was 
spreading among them, if they had not found in 
the exposition of that doctrine some of the terms 
in which the heresy was delivered ; and as the 
chief of these terms, Logos, which Cerinthus 
applied to an inferior spirit, was equivalent to a 
phrase in common use among the Jews, 'the 
Word of Jehovah,' and was probably borrowed 
from thence, John, by his use of Logos, rescues 
it from the degraded use of Cerinthus, and 
restores it to a sense corresponding to the dignity 
of a Jewish phrase." — Hill's Lectures. 

The Logos was no fanciful term, merely in- 
vented by St. John, pro re nata, or even sug- 
gested by the Holy Spirit, as a suitable title for 
a prophet, by whom God chose to reveal himself 
or his Word. It was a term diversely understood 
in the world before St. John began his Gospel. 
Is it possible, therefore, that he should have 
used the term without some express allusion to 
these prevailing opinions ? Had he contradicted 
them all, it would, of course, have been a plain 
proof that they were all equally fabulous and 
fanciful; but by adopting the term, he certainly 
meant to show that the error did not consist in 
believing that there was a Logos, or Word of 
God, but in thinking amiss of it. We might, 
indeed, have wondered much had he decidedly 
adopted the Platonic or Gnostic notions, in pre- 
ference to the Jewish ; but that he should har- 
monize with the latter is by no means surprising ; 
first, because he was a Jew himself; and secondly, 
because Christianity was plainly to bo shown to 
bo connected with, and, as it were, regularly to 
have sprung out of Judaism. It is certainly, 
tlion, in the highest degree consistent with all 
wo could reasonably expect, to find St. John and 
others of the sacred writers expressing them- 
selves in terms not only familiar to tho .lows 
under tho old covenant, but which might tend, 



324 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



by a perfect revelation of the truth, to give in- 
struction to all parties : correcting the errors of 
the Platonic and oriental systems, and confirming, 
in the clearest manner, the hopes and expecta- 
tions of the Jews. (See Nares's Remarks on the 
Socinian Version.) 

"While the reasons for the use of this term by 
St. John are obvious, the argument from it is 
irresistible ; for, first, the Logos of the evangelist 
is a person, not an attribute, as many Socinians 
have said, who have, therefore, sometimes chosen 
to render it "wisdom." For if an attribute, it 
were a mere truism to say that it was in the be- 
ginning with God, for God could never be with- 
out his attributes. The apostle also declares that 
the Logos was the Light ; but that John Baptist 
was not the Light. Here is a kind of parallel 
supposed, and it presumes, also, that it was 
possible that the same character might be erro- 
neously ascribed to both. 

"Between person and person this may un- 
doubtedly be the case ; but what species of par- 
allel can exist between man and an attribute ? 
Nor will the difficulty be obviated by suggesting, 
that wisdom here means not the attribute itself, 
but him whom that attribute inspired, the man 
Jesus Christ, because the name of our Saviour 
has not yet been mentioned : because that rule 
of interpretation must be inadmissible, which at 
one time would explain the term Logos by an 
attribute, at another by a man, as best suits the 
convenience of hypothesis ; and because, if it 
be in this instance conceived to indicate our 
Saviour, it must follow that our Saviour created 
the world, (which the Unitarians will by no means 
admit,) for the Logos, who was that which John 
the Baptist was not, the true Light, is expressly 
declared to have made the world." — Laurence's 
Dissertation on the Logos. 

Again : the Logos was made flesh, that is, be- 
came man ;. but in what possible sense could an 
attribute become man? The Logos is "the only- 
begotten of the Father ;" but it would be uncouth 
to say of any attribute, that it is begotten ; and 
if that were passed over, it would follow, from 
this notion, either that God has only one attri- 
bute, or that wisdom is not his only-begotten 
attribute. Further, St. John uses terms deci- 
sively personal, as that he is God, not Divine as 
an attribute, but God personally : not that he was 
in God, which would properly have been said of 
an attribute, but with God, which he could only 
say of a person: that " all things were made by 
him:" that he was "in the world:" that "he came 
to his own:" that he was "in the bosom of the 
Father;" and that " he hath declared the Father." 
The absurdity of representing the Logos of St. 
John as an attributive, seems, at length, to have 



[PART n. 

been perceived by the Socinians themselves, and 
their New Version accordingly regards it as a 
personal term. 

If the Logos is a person, then is he Divine ; 
for, first, eternity is ascribed to him — "in the 
beginning was the Word." The Unitarian com- 
ment is, "from the beginning of his ministry, or 
the commencement of the gospel dispensation ;" 
which makes St. John use another trifling truism, 
and solemnly tell his readers that our Saviour, 
when he began his ministry, was in existence! 
"in the beginning of his ministry the Word was /" 
It is true that dpxy, the beginning, is used for the 
beginning of Christ's ministry, when he says that 
the apostles had been "with him from the begin- 
ning;" and it may be used for the beginning of 
any thing whatever. It is a term which must be 
determined in its meaning by the context ; 1 and 
the question, therefore, is, how the connection 
here determines it. Almost immediately it is 
added, "all things were made by him;" which, 
in a preceding chapter, has been proved to mean 
the creation of universal nature. He, then, who 
made all things was prior to all created things : 
he was when they began to be, and before they 
began to be ; and, if he existed before all created 
things, he was not himself created, and was, 
therefore, eternal. 2 Secondly, he is expressly 
called God, in the same sense as the Father; and 
thirdly, he is as explicitly said to be the Creator 
of all things. The two last particulars have 
already been largely established, and nothing 
need be added, except, as another proof that the 
Scriptures can only be fairly explained by the 
doctrine of a distinction of Divine persons in the 
Godhead, the declaration of St. John may be 
adduced, that "the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God." What hypothesis but this goes 
a single step to explain this wonderful language? 
Arianism, which allows the preexistence of Christ 
with God, accords with the first clause, but con- 
tradicts the second. Sabellianism, which reduces 
the personal to an official, and therefore a tem- 
poral, distinction, accords with the second clause, 
but contradicts the first ; for Christ, according to 
this theory, was not with God in the beginning, 
that is, in eternity. Socinianism contradicts 
both clauses; for on that scheme Christ was 
neither with God "in the beginning," nor was 
he God. "The faith of God's elect" agrees 

1 "Quotiescuoque fit principii mentio, significationem 
illius ad id de quo accommodare necesse est." — Beza. 

2 " Valde errant, qui h> apxV interpretantur de initio 
Evangelio; huic enim sententiae consilium Joannis, et 
sequens oratio aperte repugnat. Si vero Aoyoc fuit jam 
turn, quum mundus esse caspit, sequitur eum fuisse ante 
mundum conditum ; sequitur etiam eum non esse unam ex 
ceteris creatis rebus, qua? cum mundo esse caeperunt, sed 
alia natura conditione." — Rosenjiullee. 



CH. XIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



325 



with both clauses, and by both it is established, 
"The Word was with God, and the Word was 
God." 



CHAPTER XIII. 

CHRIST POSSESSED OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 

Having considered the import of some of the 
titles applied to our Lord in the Scriptures, and 
proved that they imply Divinity, we may next 
consider the attributes which are ascribed to him 
in the New Testament. If, to names and lofty 
titles which imply Divinity, we find added attri- 
butes never given to creatures, and from which 
all creatures are excluded, the Deity of Christ is 
established beyond reasonable controversy. No 
argument can be more conclusive than this. Of 
the essence of Deity we know nothing, but that he 
is a Spirit. He is made known by his attributes ; 
and it is from them that we learn that there is 
an essential distinction between him and his crea- 
tures, because he has attributes which they have 
not, and those which they have in common with 
him, he possesses in a degree absolutely perfect. 
From this it follows, that his is a peculiar nature, 
a nature sui generis, to which no creature does or 
can possibly approximate. Should, then, these 
same attributes be found ascribed to Christ, as 
explicitly and literally as to the Father, it follows 
of necessity that, the attributes being the same, 
the essence is the same, and that essence the ex- 
clusive nature of the Qeottjc, or "Godhead." It 
would, indeed, follow that if but one of the pecu- 
liar attributes of Deity were ascribed to Christ, 
he must possess the whole, since they cannot 
exist separately; and whoever is possessed of 
one must be concluded to be in possession of all. 1 
But it is not one attribute only, but all the attri- 
butes of Deity which are ascribed to him ; and 
not only those which are moral, and which 
are, therefore, capable of being communicated, 
(though those, as they are attributed to Christ 
in infinite degree and in absoluto perfection, 
would be sufficient for the argument,) but those 
which are, on all sides, allowed to bo incommuni- 
cable, and peculiar to the Godhead. 

Eternity is ascribed to him. "Unto us a 
child is born, unto us a son is given ; and the 
government shall be upon his shoulder ; and his 
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the 
Mighty God, tho Everlasting Father, the Prince 
of Peace." "Everlasting Father" is variously 

i "Atti ii.iiu Divina arctiBBimo copularJ vinculo, bIo, at 
nullum Beperatim concipJ queat, adeoque qui uno pollot, 
omnibus ornotur." — DatDZBLBlJf. 



rendered by the principal orthodox critics ; but 
every rendering is in consistency with the appli- 
cation of a positive eternity to the Messiah, of 
which this is allowed to be a prediction. Bishop 
Lowth says, " the Father of the everlasting age." 
Bishop Stock, " the Father of eternity :" i. e., the 
owner of it. Dathe and Rosenmuller, "JEternus." 
The former considers it an oriental idiom, by 
which names of affinity, as father, mother, etc., 
are used to denote the author or eminent pos- 
sessor of a quality or object. Rev. i. 17, 18: "I 
am the First and the Last, I am he that liveth 
and was dead:" so also ch. ii. 8; and in both 
passages the context shows, indisputably, that it 
is our Lord himself who speaks, and applies these 
titles to himself. In ch. xxii. 13, also, Christ is 
the speaker, and declares himself to be "Alpha 
and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the 
First and the Last." Now, by these very titles 
is the eternity of God declared, Isaiah xlv. 6, 
and xliii. 10 : "I am the first, and I am the last ; 
and beside me there is no God." "Before me 
was there no God formed, neither shall there be 
after me." But they are, in the book of Revela- 
tion, assumed by Christ as explicitly and abso- 
lutely ; and they clearly affirm that the Being to 
whom they are applied had no beginning, and 
will have no end. In Rev. i. 8, after the decla- 
ration, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning 
and the ending, saith the Lord," it is added, 
"which is, and which was, and which is to 
come, the Almighty." Some have referred these 
words to the Father; but certainly without 
reason, as the very scope of the passage shows. 
It is Christ who speaks in the first person, 
throughout the chapter, when the sublime titles 
of the former part of the verse are used, and 
indeed throughout the book; and to interpret 
this particular clause of the Father would intro- 
duce a most abrupt change of persons, which, 
but for a false theory, would never have been 
imagined. The words, indeed, do but express 
the import of the name Jehovah, so often given 
to Christ ; and as, when the Father is spoken of, 
in verse 4, the same declaration is made concern- 
ing him which, in verse 8, our Lord makes of 
himself, it follows that if the terms "which was, 
and is, and is to come," are descriptivo of the 
eternity of the Father, they are also descriptive 
of eternity as an attribute also of the Son. We 
have a similar declaration in Heb. xiii. 8: "Jesus 

Christ, THE SAME YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, and FOR 

ever;" where eternity, and its necessary con- 
comitant, immutability, are both ascribed to him. 
That the phrase, "yesterday, to-day, and for 
over," is equivalent to eternity, needs no proofj 
and that the words are not spoken of the doctrine 
of Christ, as tho Socinians contend, appears from 



326 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



the context, "which scarcely makes any sense 
upon this hypothesis, (See Macknight,) since a 
doctrine once delivered must remain what it was 
at first. This interpretation, also, gives a figura- 
tive sense to words which have all the character 
of a strictly literal declaration; and it is a 
further confirmation of the literal sense, and 
that Christ is spoken of personally, that 6 avroc 
is the phrase by which the immutability of the 
Son is expressed in chapter i. verse 12: "But 
thou art 6 avroc, the same." Pierce, in his Para- 
phrase, has well expressed the connection: " Con- 
sidering the conclusion of their life and behavior, 
imitate their faith; for the object of their faith, 
Jesus Christ, is the same now as he was then, 
and will be the same for ever." A Being essen- 
tially unchangeable, and therefore eternal, is the 
only proper object of an absolute "faith." A 
similar and most solemn ascription of eternity 
and immutability occurs Heb. i. 10-12 : " Thou, 
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation 
of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of 
thine hands. They shall perish; but thou re- 
mainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a 
garment ; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them 
up, and they shall be changed ; but thou art the 

SAME, AND THY YEARS SHALL NOT FAIL." These 

words are quoted from Psalm cii., which all 
acknowledge to be a lofty description of the 
eternity of God. They are here applied to 
Christ, and of him they affirm, that he was be- 
fore the material universe — that it was created 
by him — that he has absolute power over it — 
that he shall destroy it — that he shall do this 
with infinite ease, as one who folds up a vesture — 
and that, amid the decays and changes of mate- 
rial things, he remains the same. The immuta- 
bility here ascribed to Christ is not, however, 
that of a created spirit, which will remain when 
the material universe is destroyed; for then 
there would be nothing proper to Christ in the 
text, nothing but in which angels and men par- 
ticipate with him, and the words would be de- 
prived of all meaning. His immutability and 
duration are peculiar, and a contrast is implied 
between his existence and that of all created 
things. They are dependent, he is independent ; 
and his necessary, and therefore eternal existence 
must follow. The phrase "eternal life," when 
used, as it is frequently, in St. John's Epistles, 
is also a clear designation of the eternity of our 
Saviour. "For the life was manifested, and 
we have seen it, and bear witness, and show 
unto you that eternal life, which was with the 
Father, and was manifested unto us." In the 
first clause, Christ is called the Life : he is then 
said to be "eternal;" and, that no mistake 
should arise, as though the apostle merely meant 



[part n. 

to declare that he would continue for ever, he 
shows that he ascribes eternity to him in his pre- 
existent state — "that eternal life" which was 
with the Father ; and with him before he was 
"manifested to men." And eternal preexistence 
could not be more unequivocally marked. 

To these essential attributes of Deity, to be 
without beginning and without change, is added 
that of being extended through all space. He 
is not only eternal, but omnipresent. Thus he 
declares himself to be at the same time in heaven 
and upon earth, which is assuredly a property 
of Deity alone. "No man hath ascended up to 
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, 
even the Son of man which is in heaven." The 
genuineness of the last clause has been attacked 
by a few critics, but has been fully established 
by Dr. Magee. (Magee on the Atonement.) This 
passage has been defended from the Socinian in- 
terpretation already, and contains an unequivocal 
declaration of ubiquity. 

For "where two or three are gathered to- 
gether in my name, there am I in the midst of 
them." How futile is the Socinian comment in 
the New Version ! This promise is to be "limited 
to the apostolic age." But were that granted, 
what would the concession avail ? In the apos- 
tolic age, the disciples met in the name of their 
Lord many times in the week, and in innumera- 
ble parts of the world at the same time, in Judea, 
Asia Minor, Europe, etc. He, therefore, who could 
be "in the midst of them," whenever and wher- 
ever they assembled, must be omnipresent. But 
they add, "by a spiritual presence, a faculty of 
knowing things in places where he was not pres- 
ent :" "a gift," they say, " given to the apostles 
occasionally," and refer to 1 Cor. v. 3. No such 
gift is, however, claimed by the apostle in that 
passage, who knew the affair in the Church of 
Corinth, not by any such faculty or revelation, 
but by "report," verse 1. Nor does he say that 
he was present with them, but judged " as though 
he were present." If, indeed, any such gift were 
occasionally given to the apostles, it would be, 
not a "spiritual presence," as the New Version 
has it, but a figurative presence. No such figu- 
rative meaning is, however, hinted at in the text 
before us, which is as literal a declaration of 
Christ's presence everywhere with his worship- 
pers as that similar promise made by Jehovah to 
the Israelites : "In all places where I record my 
name I will come to thee, and I will bless thee." 
At the very moment, too, of his ascension, that 
is, just when, as to his bodily presence, he was 
leaving his disciples, he promises still to be with 
them, and calls their attention to this promise 
by an emphatic particle, "And lo I am with TOD 
alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt. 



i 



ch. xin.] 

xxviii. 20. The Socinians render "to the end 
of the age," that is, "the Jewish dispensation, 
till the destruction of Jerusalem." All that can 
be said in favor of this is, that the words may be 
so translated, if no regard is paid to their im- 
port. But it is certain that, in several passages, 
"the end of the world," rj Gvvreheia tov altivoc, 
must be understood in its popular sense. That 
this is its sense here, appears, first, from the 
clause, "Lo I am with you alwat," Ttdaac rac 
rjrjipac, "at all times:" secondly, because spirit- 
ual presence stands, by an evidently implied an- 
tithesis, opposed to bodily absence : thirdly, be- 
cause that presence of Christ was as necessary 
to his disciples after the destruction of Jerusalem 
as till that period. But even were the promise 
to be so restricted, it would still be in proof of 
the omnipresence of our Lord; for, if he were 
present with all his disciples in all places, "al- 
way," to the destruction of Jerusalem, it could 
only be by virtue of a property which would ren- 
der him present to his disciples in all ages. The 
Socinian Version intimates that the presence 
meant is the gift of miraculous powers. Let 
even that be allowed, though it is a very partial 
view of the promise : then, if till the destruction 
of Jerusalem the apostles were "alway," "at 
all times," able to work miracles, the power to 
enable them to effect these wonders must "al- 
way" and in all places have been present with 
them ; and if that were not a human endowment, 
if a power superior to that of man were requisite 
for the performance of the miracles, and that 
power was the power of Christ, then he was 
really, though spiritually, present with them, un- 
less the attribute of power can be separated from 
its subject, and the power of Christ be where he 
himself is not. This, however, is a low view 
of the import of the promise, "Lo I am with 
you," which, both in the Old and New Testament, 
signifies to be present with any one, to help, 
comfort, and succor him. "Wivai fierd tivoc, 
alicui adesse, juvare aliquem, curare res alicu- 

JUS. " ROSENMULLER. 

It is not necessary to adduce more than another 
passage in proof of a point so fully determined 
already by the authority of Scripture. After the 
apostle, in Col. i. 16, 17, has ascribed the crea- 
tion of all things in heaven and earth, "visible 
and invisible," to Christ, he adds, "and by him 
all things consist." On this passage, Kaphclius 
cites a striking passage from Aristotle, Do Mundo, 
whore the same verb, rendered "consist" by our 
translators, is used in a like sense to express tho 
constant dependence of all things upon their 
Creator for continued subsistence and preserva- 
tion. " There is a certain ancient tradition com- 
mon to all mankind, that all things subsist from 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



327 



and by God, and that no kind of being is self- 
sufficient, when alone, and destitute of his pre- 
serving aid." 1 The apostle then, here, not only 
attributes the creation, but the conservation of 
all things to Christ ; but to preserve them, his 
presence must be coextensive with them, and 
thus the universe of matter and created spirits, 
heaven and earth, must be filled with his power 
and presence. " This short sentence implies that 
our Lord's presence extends to every part of the 
creation, to every being and system in the uni- 
verse — a most striking and emphatical descrip- 
tion of the omnipresence of God the Son." — 
Holden's Scripture Testimonies. 

To these attributes of essential Divinity is 
added a perfect knowledge of all things. 
This cannot be the attribute of a creature ; for 
though it may be difficult to say how far the 
knowledge of the highest order of intelligent 
creatures may be extended, yet are there two 
kinds of knowledge which God has made peculiar 
to himself by solemn and exclusive claim. The 
first is, the perfect knowledge of the thoughts 
and intents of the heart. "I the Lord search 
the heart, I try the reins." Jeremiah xvii. 10. 
"Thou, even thou only," says Solomon, "know- 
est the hearts of all the children of men." 1 
Kings viii. 39. This knowledge is attributed to, 
and was claimed by, our Lord, and that without 
any intimation that it was in consequence of a 
special revelation, or supernatural gift, as in a 
few instances we see in the apostles and prophets, 
bestowed to answer a particular and temporary 
purpose. In such instances also, it is to be ob- 
served, the knowledge of the spirits and thoughts 
of men was obtained in consequence of a revela- 
tion made to them by Him whose prerogative it 
is to search the heart. In the case of our Lord, 
it is, however, not merely said, "And Jesus knew 
their thoughts" that he perceived in his spirit that 
they so reasoned among themselves, but it is re- 
ferred to as an attribute or original faculty, and 
it is, therefore, made use of by St. John, on one 
occasion, to explain his conduct with reference 
to certain of his enemies: "But Jesus did not 
commit himself unto them, because he knew all 
men, and needed not that any should testify of 
man, for he knew what was in man." After 
his exaltation, also, he claims the prerogative in 
the full style and majesty of tho Jehovah of the 
Old Testament: "And all the Churches shall 
know that I am he which searchetii the reins 
and the heart." 

A striking description of the omniscience of 
Christ is also found in Hob. iv. 12, 18, if wo un- 
derstand it, with most of the anoients, of the 

1 Kapholius ia loc. Seo also rnrkhurst's Lox. 



328 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



hypostatic Word — to which sense, I think, the 
scope of the passage and context clearly deter- 
mines it: " For the Word of God is quick (living) 
and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged 
sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of 
soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, 
and is a discerner of the thoughts and in- 
tents of the heart : neither is there any crea- 
ture that is not manifest in his sight ; for all 
things are naked and opened to the eyes of him 
with whom we have to do." The reasons for re- 
ferring this passage rather to Christ, the author 
of the Gospel, than to the Gospel itself, are, 
first, that it agrees "better with the apostle's ar- 
gument. He is warning Christians against the 
example of ancient Jewish unbelief, and enforces 
his warning by reminding them that the Word 
of God discerns the thoughts and intents of the 
heart. The argument is obvious, if the personal 
Word is meant — not at all so, if the doctrine of 
the Gospel be supposed. Secondly, the clauses, 
''neither is there any creature that is not mani- 
fest in his sight," and, " all things are naked 
and opened to the eyes of him with whom we have 
to do," or " to whom we must give an account" are 
undoubtedly spoken of a person, and that person j 
our witness and judge. Those, therefore, who 
think that the Gospel is spoken of in verse 12, 
represent the apostle as making a transition from 
the Gospel to God himself in what follows. This, 
however, produces a violent break in the argu- 
ment, for which no grammatical nor contextual 
reason whatever can be given ; and it is evident 
that the same metaphor extends through both 
verses. This is taken from the practice of divid- 
ing and cutting asunder the bodies of beasts 
slain for sacrifice, and laying them open for in- 
spection, lest any blemish or unsoundness should 
lurk within, and render them unfit for the ser- 
vice of God. The dividing asunder of "the 
joints and marrow," in the 12th verse, and the 
being made "naked and opened to the eyes," in 
the 1 3th, are all parts of the same sacrificial and 
judicial action, to which, therefore, we can justly 
assign but one agent. The only reason given for 
the other interpretation is, that the term Logos 
is nowhere else used by St. Paul. This can 
weigh but little against the obvious sense of the 
passage. St. Luke, i. 2, appears to use the term 
Logos in a personal sense, and he uses it but 
once ; and if St. Paul uses it here, and not in his 
other epistles, this reason may be given, that in 
other epistles he writes to Jews and Gentiles 
united in the same Churches: here, to Jews 
alone, among whom we have seen that the Logos 
was a well-known theological term. 1 

1 " Non deerat peculiaris ratio, cur Filium Dei sic voca- 



[PART II. 

The Socinians urge against this ascription of 
infinite knowledge to our Lord, Mark xiii. 32 : 
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, 
no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither 
the Son, but the Father only." The genuineness 
of the clause "neither the Son" has been dis- 
puted, and is not inserted by Griesbach in his 
text: there is not, however, sufficient reason for 
its rejection, though certainly in the parallel 
passage, Matt, xxiv. 36, "neither the Son" is 
not found. "But of that day and hour knoweth 
no man, no, not the angels of heaven ; but my 
Father only." We are then reduced to this — a 
number of passages explicitly declare that Christ 
knows all things: there is one which declares 
that the Son did not know "the day and the 
hour" of judgment : again, there is a passage 
which certainly implies that even this period was 
known to Christ ; for St. Paul, 1 Tim. vi. 14, 
speaking of the "appearing of our Lord Jesus 
Christ" as the universal judge, immediately adds, 
"which in his own times, Katpole Wiolq, shall show 
who is the blessed and only potentate," etc. 
The day of judgment is here called '•'■his own 
times," or " his own seasons," which, in its obvious 
sense, means the season he has himself fixed, 
since a certain manifestation of himself is in its 
fulness reserved by him to that period. As "the 
times and the seasons" also are said, in another 
place, to be in the Father's "own power," so, by 
an equivalent phrase, they are here said to be in 
the power of the Son, because they are "his own 
times." Doubtless, then, he knew "the day and 
the hour of judgment," 2 Now, certainly, no 
such glaring and direct contradiction can exist 
in the word of truth, as that our Lord should 
know the day of judgment, and, at the same 
time, and in the same sense, not know it. Either, 
therefore, the passage in Mark must admit of an 
interpretation which will make it consistent with 
other passages which clearly affirm our Lord's 
knowledge of all things, and consequently of this 
great day, or these passages must submit to such 
an interpretation as will bring them into accord- 
ance with that in Mark. It cannot, however, be 
in the nature of things that texts, which clearly 
predicate an infinite knowledge, should be inter- 
preted to mean a finite and partial knowledge, 
and this attempt would only establish a contra- 
diction between the text and the comment. 
Their interpretation is imperative upon us ; but 



ret, cum ad Hebraeeos scriberet, qui eum illo nomine in- 
digitare solebant : ut constat ex Targum, cujus pars hoc 
tempore facta est, et ex Philone aliisque Hellenistis.'"— 
Poli Synop. 

2 Kaipolc Idtoic, tempore, quod ipse novit. Erat itaque 
tempus adventus Christi ignotum Apostolis." — Roses- 

MtJLLER. 



ch. xrn.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



329 



the text in Mark is capable of an interpretation 
which involves no contradiction or absurdity 
whatever, and which makes it accord with the 
rest of the Scripture testimony on this subject. 
This may be done two ways. The first is 
adopted by Macknight. 

''The word oldev here seems to have the force 
of the Hebrew conjugation, hiphil, which, in verbs 
denoting action, makes that action, whatever it 
is, pass to another. Wherefore elSeo, which 
properly signifies, I know, used in the sense of 
the conjugation hiphil, signifies, I make another to 
know, I declare. The word has this meaning, 
without dispute, 1 Cor. ii. 2. 'i determined, 
eidevai, to know nothing among you, but Jesus 
Christ and him crucified:' i. e., I determined to 
make known, to preach nothing, but Jesus Christ. 
So, likewise, in the text, 'But of that day and 
that hour none maketh you to know,' none hath 
power to make you know it : just as the phrase, 
Matt. xx. 23, 'is not mine to give,' signifies, 'is 
not in my power to give:' 'no, not the angels, 
neither the Son, but the Father.' Neither man 
nor angel, nor even the Son himself, can reveal 
the day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem 
to you : because the Father hath determined that 
it should not be revealed." — Harmony. 

The second is the usual manner of meeting the 
difficulty, and refers the words "neither the 
Son" exclusively to the human nature of our 
Lord, which we know, as to the body, "grew in 
stature," and, as to the mind, in "wisdom." 
Bishop Kidder, in answering the Socinian objec- 
tion from the lips of a Jew, observes, — 

"1. That we Christians do believe, not only 
that Christ was God, but also that he was 
perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh 
subsisting. 

"We do believe, that his body was like one of 
ours : a real, not a fantastic and imaginary one. 

"We do also believe, that he had a human 
soul, of the same nature and kind with one of 
ours : though it was free from sin, and all original 
stain and corruption. And no wonder, then, that 
we read of him that he increased, not only in 
stature, and in favor with God and man, but in 
wisdom also : Luke ii. 52. Now tvisdom is a 
spiritual endowment, and belongs to the mind or 
soul. He could not be said to increase in xvisdom 
as ho was God ; nor could this be said of him 
with respect to his body, for that is not the sub- 
ject of wisdom; but with regard to the human 
soul of Christ, the other part of our human 
nature. 

"2. It must 1)0 granted, that as man he did 
not know boyond the capacities of human and 
finite understanding ; and not what he knew as 
God. Ho could not bo supposed to know in this 



respect things not knowable by man, any other- 
wise than as the Divine nature and wisdom 
thought fit to communicate and impart such 
knowledge to him. 

"3. That therefore Christ may be said, with 
respect to his human nature and finite under- 
standing, not to know the precise time, the day 
and hour, of some future events. 

"4. 'Tis further to be considered how the 
evangelists report this matter : they do it in such 
terms as are very observable. Of that day and 
hour knoweth no man : it follows, neither the Son. 
He doth not say the Son of God, nor the Aoyog, 
or Word, but the Son only. 

"I do not know, all this while, where there is 
any inconsistency in the faith of Christians 
[arising from this view] : when we believe that 
Jesus was in all things made like unto us, and in 
some respect a little lower than the angels. Heb. 
ii. 7, 17. I see no force in the above-named 
objection." — Demonstration of Ifessiah. 

The "Son of man," it is true, is here placed 
above the angels ; but, as Waterland observes, 
"the particular concern the Son of man has in 
the last judgment is sufficient to account for the 
supposed climax or gradation. 

"It is, indeed, objected by Socinians, that 
these interpretations of Mark xiii. 32 charge 
our Saviour, if not with direct falsehood, at least 
with criminal evasion: since he could not say 
with truth and sincerity that he was ignorant 
of the day, if he knew it in any capacity : as it 
cannot be denied that man is immortal, so long 
as he is, in any respect, immortal. The answer 
to this is, that as it may truly be said of the 
body of man, that it is not immortal, though the 
soul is, so it may, with equal truth, be said, that 
the So?i of man was ignorant of some things, 
though the Son of God knew every thing. It is 
not, then, inconsistent with truth and sincerity 
for our Lord to deny that he knew what he really 
did know in one capacity, while he was ignorant 
of it in another, Thus, in one place he says, 
'Now I am no more in the world,' John xvii. 11 ; 
and in another, 'Ye have the poor always with 
you, but me ye have not always,' Matt. xxvi. 11 ; 
yet on another occasion, he says, 'Lo I am with 
you alway,' Matt, xxviii. 20; and again, 'If any 
man love me — my Father will love him, and wo 
will come unto him, and make our abode -with 
him,' John xiv. 23. From hence we see that our 
Lord might, without any breach of sincerity, 
deny that of himself, considered in one oapaoity, 
which he could not have denied in another. 
Thero was no equivocation in his denying the 
knowledge of 'that day and that hour." since. 
with respect to his human nature, it was most 
truo: and that ho designed it to refer alone to 



330 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PAET II. 



his human nature, is probable, because be does 
not say the Son of God was ignorant of tbat day, 
but the Son, meaning the Son of man, as appears 
from the context, Matthew xxiv. 37, 39 ; Mark 
xiii. 26, 34. Thus Mark xiii. 32, which, at first 
sight, may seem to favor the Unitarian hypothe- 
sis, is capable of a rational and unforced inter- 
pretation, consistently with the orthodox faith." 
— Holder's Testimonies. 

As the knowledge of the heart is attributed to 
Christ, so also is the knowledge of futurity, 
which is another quality so peculiar to Deity, 
that we find the true God distinguishing himself 
from all the false divinities of the heathen by 
this circumstance alone. "To whom will ye 
liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, 
that we maybe like?" "I am God, and there 
is none like me. Declaring the end from the be- 
ginning, and from ancient times the things that are 
not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and 
I will do all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi. 5, 9, 10. 
All the predictions uttered by our Saviour, and 
which are nowhere referred by him to inspiration, 
the source to which all the prophets and apostles 
refer their prophetic gifts, but were spoken as 
from his own prescience, are in proof of his pos- 
sessing this attribute. It is also afiirraed, John 
vi. 61, that "Jesus knew from the beginning who 
they were that believed not, and who should 
betray him;" and again, John xiii. 11, "For 
Jesus knew who should betray him." 

Thus we find the Scriptures ascribing to Jesus 
an existence without beginning, without change, 
without limitation, and connected, in the whole 
extent of space which it fills, with the exercise 
of the most perfect intelligence. These are 
essential attributes of Deity. ' ■ Measures of power 
may be communicated : degrees of wisdom and 
goodness may be imparted to created spirits ; but 
our conceptions of God are confounded, and we 
lose sight of every circumstance by which he is 
characterized, if such a manner of existence as 
we have now described be common to him and 
any creature." — Hill's Lectures. 

To these attributes may also be added omnipo- 
tence, which is also peculiar to the Godhead ; 
for, though power may be com m unicated to a 
creature, yet a finite capacity must limit the 
communication ; nor can it exist infinitely, any 
more than wisdom, except in an infinite nature. 
Christ is, however, styled, (Rev. i. 8,) "The 
Almighty." To the Jews he said, "What things 
soever he [the Father] doeth, these also doeth 
the Sox likewise." Further, he declares, that 
"as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he 
given to the Son to have life ix himself," which 
is a most strongly marked distinction between 
himself and all creatures whatever. He has 



"life in himself," and he has it "as the Father" 
has it, that is, perfectly, and infinitely, which 
sufficiently demonstrates that he is of the same 
essence, or he could not have this communion of 
properties with the Father. The life is, indeed, 
said to be "given," but this communication from 
the Father makes no difference in the argument. 
"Whether the "life" mean the same original and 
: independent life, which at once entitles the Deity 
to the appellations "The living God," and 
I "The Father of spirits," or the bestowing of 
eternal life upon all believers, it amounts to the 
same thing. The "life" which is thus bestowed 
upon believers, the continuance and perfect 
blessedness of existence, is from Christ as its 
fountain, and he has it as the Father himself hath 
it. By his eternal generation it was derived from 
the Father to him, and he possesses it equally 
with the Father ; by the appointment of his 
Father he is made the source of eternal life to 
believers, as having that life in himself to be- 
stow, and to supply for ever. 

We may sum up the whole scriptural argu- 
ment, from Divine attributes being ascribed by 
the disciples to our Saviour, and claimed by 
himself, with his own remarkable declaration, 
"All things which the Father hath are mine.' - ' 
John xvi. 15. "Here he challenges to himself 
the incommunicable attributes, and, consequently, 
( that essence which is inseparable from them." 
' (Whitby.) "If God the Son hath all things 
\ that the Father hath, then hath he all the attri- 
butes and perfections belonging to the Father, 
the same power, rights, and privileges, the same 
honor and glory; and, in a word, the same 
nature, substance, and Godhead." — Waterland. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE ACTS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST PROOFS OF HIS 
DIYTNITY. 

This arsmment is in confirmation of the fore- 
; going ; for, if not only the proper names of God, 
his majestic and peculiar titles, and his attributes, 
are attributed to our Lord ; but if also acts have 
been done by him which, in the nature of things, 
cannot be performed by any creature, however 
exalted, then he by whom they were done must 
be truly God. 

The first act of this kind is creation — the 
creation of all things. It is not here necessary/ 
to enter into any argument to prove that creation, 
in its proper sense, that is, the production of 
: things out of nothing, is possible only to Divine 
power. The Socinians themselves acknowledge 



CH. XIV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



331 



this; and, therefore, employ their perverting 
but feeble criticisms in a vain attempt to prove 
that the creation, of which Christ, in the New 
Testament, is said to be the author, is to be un- 
derstood of a moral creation, or of the regulation 
of all things in the evangelic dispensation. I 
shall not adduce many passages to prove that a 
proper creation is ascribed to our Lord ; for they 
are sufficiently in the recollection of the reader. 
It is enough that two or three of them only be 
exhibited, which cannot be taken, without mani- 
fest absurdity, in any other sense but as attri- 
buting the whole physical creation to him. 

The ascription of the creation of "all things," 
in the physical sense, to the Divine Word, in the 
introduction to St. John's Gospel, has been vin- 
dicated against the Socinian interpretation in a 
preceding page. I shall only further remark 
upon it, first, that if St. John had intended a 
moral, and not a physical creation, he could not 
have expressed himself as he does without in- 
tending to mislead: a supposition equally con- 
trary to his inspiration and to his piety. He 
affirms that "all things," and that without limita- 
tion or restriction, "were made by him:" that 
"without him was not any thing made that was 
made:" which clearly means, that there is no 
created object which had not Christ for its 
Creator : an assertion which contains a revelation 
of a most important and fundamental doctrine. 
If, however, it be taken in the Socinian sense, it 
is a pitiful truism, asserting that Christ did 
nothing in establishing his religion which he did 
not do ; for to this effect their Version itself ex- 
presses it, — "All things were done by him, and 
without him was not any thing done that hath 
been done;" or, as they might have rendered it, 
to make the folly still more manifest, "without 
him was not any thing done that was done by 
him, or which he himself did." Unfortunately, 
howewr, for the notion of arranging or regu- 
lating the new dispensation, the apostle adds a 
full confirmation of his former doctrine, that the 
physical creation was the result of the power of 
the Divine Word, by asserting that "the world 
was made by him:" 1 that world into which he 
came as "the light f that world in which he was 
when he was made flesh ; that world which 
"knew him not." It matters nothing to the 
argument, whether "the world" bo understood 
of men or of the material world ; on either sup- 
position it was made by him, and the creation 
was, therefore, physical. In neither caso could 
tho creation be a moral one, for the material world 

1 "The world waa enlightened by him," Bays the Now 
m: which perfectly gratuitous rendering baa been 
i Ivertod to. 



is incapable of a moral renewal ; and the world 
which "knew not" Christ, if understood of men, 
was not renewed, but unregenerated ; or he 
would have been "known," that is, acknowledged 
by them. 

Another passage, equally incapable of being 
referred to any but a physical creation, is found 
in Heb. i. 2: "By whom also he made the 
worlds." "God," says the apostle, "hath in 
these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom 
he hath appointed heir of all things ;" and then 
he proceeds to give further information of the 
nature and dignity of the personage thus de- 
nominated "Son" and "heir;" and his very 
first declaration concerning him, in this exposi- 
tion of his character, in order to prove him 
greater than angels, who are the greatest of all 
created beings, is that " by him also God made 
the worlds." Two methods have been resorted 
to, in order to ward off the force of this decisive 
testimony as to the Deity of Christ, grounded 
upon his creative acts. The first is, to render 
the words "for whom he made the worlds:" 
thus referring creation immediately to the Father, 
and making the preposition did,, with a genitive 
case, signify the final cause, the reason or end, 
for which "the worlds" were created. Were 
this, even, allowed, it would be a strange doc- 
trine to assert, that for a mere man, for the 
exercise of the ministry of a mere man, as 
Christ is taken to be upon the Socinian hypo- 
thesis, "the worlds," the whole visible creation, 
with its various orders of intellectual beings, 
were created. This is a position almost as much 
opposed to that corrupt hypothesis as is the or- 
thodox doctrine itself, and is another instance in 
proof that difficulties are multiplied, rather than 
lessened, by departing from the obvious sense of 
Scripture. But no example is found, in the 
whole New Testament, of the use of 6iu with a 
genitive to express the final cause ; and, in the 
very next verse, St. Paul uses the same con- 
struction to express the efficient cause: "when 
he had by himself purged our sins." " This in- 
terpretation," says Whitby, justly, "is contrary 
to the rule of all grammarians : contrary to the 
exposition of all the Greek fathers, and also 
without example in the New Testament," 

The second resource, therefore, is to under- 
stand "the worlds," roi)c aiuvac, in the literal 
import of the phrase, for "the ages," or the 
Gospel dispensation. But "ol aluvec, absolutely 
put, doth never signify the Churoh, or evangeli- 
cal state; nor doth the Scripture ever speak of 
the //•<>/■/(/ fa corns in the plural, bul in the singu- 
lar number only." (Whitby.) The phrase oi 

altivrc was adopted either as equivalent to the 
Jewish division oi' the whole creation into throe 



33: 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



[PAET II. 



parts, this lower world, the region of the stars, 
and the third heaven, the residence of God and 
his angels ; or as expressive of the duration of 
the world, extending through an indefinite num- 
ber of ages, and standing opposed to the short 
life of its inhabitants. Altbv primo longum tern- 
pus, postea eternitatem, apud Scriptores N. T. 
vero Koofiov mundum significat, ex Hebraismo, 
ubi u^>ys> et d">a^5 de mundo accipitur, quia mun- 
dus post tot generationes hominum perpetuo 
durat. (Rosenmuller.) The apostle, in writ- 
ing to the Hebrews, used, therefore, a mode of 
expression which was not only familiar to them, 
but which they could not but understand of the 
natural creation. This, however, is put out of 
all doubt by the use of the same phrase in the 
11th chapter: "Through faith we understand 
that the worlds were framed by the word of 
God, so that things which are seen were not 
made of things that do appear :" words which 
can only be understood of the physical creation. 
Another consideration, which takes the declara- 
tion, " by whom also he made the worlds," out 
of the reach of all the captious and puerile criti- 
cism on which we have remarked, is that, in the 
close of the chapter, the apostle reiterates the 
doctrine of the creation of the world by Jesus 
Christ : "But unto the Son he saith," not only, 
"Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever;" but, 
"Thou, Lord, [Jehovah,) in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth ; and the hea- 
vens are the works of thine hands:" words to 
which the perverted adroitness of heretics has 
been able to affix no meaning, when taken in 
any other sense than as addressed to Christ, and 
which will for ever attach to him, on the autho- 
rity of inspiration, the title of "Jehovah," and 
array him in all the majesty of creative power 
and glory. It is, indeed, a very conclusive argu- 
ment in favor of the three great points of Christ- 
ian doctrine, as comprehended in the orthodox 
faith, that it is impossible to interpret this cele- 
brated Chapter, according to any fair rule of 
natural and customary interpretation, without 
admitting that Christ is God, the Divine Son of 
God, and the Mediator. The last is indicated 
by his being the medium through whom, in these 
last days, the will of God is communicated to 
mankind: "God hath spoken" by him ; and by 
his being " anointed" priest and king " above his 
fellows." The second is expressed both by his 
title, "the Son," and by the superiority which, 
in virtue of that name, he has above angels, and 
the worship which, as the Son, they are enjoined 
to pay to him. He is also called God, and the term 
is fixed in its highest import by his being de- 
clared "the brightness of the Father's glory, 
and the express image of his person," and by 



' the creative acts which are ascribed to him; 
while his character of Son, as being of the 
, Father, is still preserved by the two metaphors 
; of "brightness" and "image" and by the ex- 
t pression, "God, even thy God." On these prin- 
ciples only is the apostle intelligible: on any 
other, the whole chapter is incapable of consist- 
ent exposition. 

The only additional passage which it is neces- 
sary to produce, in order to show that Christ is 
! the Creator of all things, and that the creation 
1 of which he is the author is not a moral but a 
physical creation — not the framing of the Christ- 
, ian dispensation, but the forming of the whole 
universe of creatures out of nothing — is Coloss. 
. i. 15-17: "Who is the image of the invisible 
; God, the first born of every creature : for by 
him were all things created that are in heaven, 
! and that are in earth, visible and invisible, 
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or prin- 
cipalities, or powers : all things were created by 
him, and for him ; and he is before all things, 
and by him all things consist." The Socinians 
interpret this of "that great change which was 
introduced into the moral world, and particularly 
into the relative situation of Jews and Gentiles, 
by the dispensation of the Gospel." [Improved 
Version.) But, 

1. The apostle introduces this passage as a 
reason why we have "redemption through his 
blood," ver. 14 ; why, in other words, the death 
of Christ was efficacious, and obviously attri- 
butes this efficacy to the dignity of his nature. 
This is the scope of his argument. 2. He, there- 
fore, affirms him to be " the image" [eUuv,) the 
exact representation or resemblance of the invisi- 
ble God : which, when compared with Heb. i. 2, 
j "who being the brightness of his glory, and the 
; express image of his person," shows that the 
apostle uses the word in a sense in which it is 
not applicable to any human or angelic being : 
"the first born of every creature;" or, more liter- 
ally, " the first born of the whole creation." The 
Arians have taken this in the sense of the first 
made creature; but this is refuted by the term 
itself, which is not "first made," but "first born;" 
and by the following verse, which proves him to 
be first born, for or because (on) "by him 
were all things created." As to the date of his 
being, he was before all created things, for they 
were created by him: as to the manner of his 
being, he was by generation, not creation. The 
apostle does not say that he was created the first 
of all creatures, but that he was born before 
them — [Vide Wolf in loc. — ) a plain allusion to 
the generation of the Son before time began, and 
before creatures existed. Wolf has also shown 
that, among the Jews, Jehovah is sometimes 



CH. XIV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



333 



called the primogenitum mundi, "the first born 
of the world," because they attributed the crea- 
tion of the world to the Logos, the Word of the 
Lord, the ostensible Jehovah of the Old Testa- 
ment, whom certainly they never meant to in- 
clude among the creatures ; and that they called 
him, also, the Son op God. It was, then, in 
perfect accordance with the theological language 
of the Jews themselves, that the apostle calls our 
Lord "the first born of the whole creation." 

The Arian interpretation, which makes the 
first made creature the Creator of the rest, is 
thus destroyed. The Socinian notion is as mani- 
festly absurd. If the creation here be the new 
dispensation, the Christian Church, then to call 
Christ the first born of this creation is to make 
the apostle say that Christ was the first made 
member of the Christian Church ; and the rea- 
son given for this is, that he made or constituted 
the Church ! If by this they mean simply that 
he was the author of Christianity, we have again 
a puerile truism put into the lips of the apostle. 
If they mean that the apostle declares that 
Christ was the first Christian, it is difficult to 
conceive how this can be gravely affirmed as a 
comment on the words : if any thing else, it is 
impossible to discover any connection in the ar- 
gument, that is, between the proposition that 
Christ is the first born of the whole creation, 
and the proof of it which is adduced, that by 
him were all things created. The annotators on 
the New Version say, "It is plain, from com- 
paring this passage with verse 18, (where Christ 
is called the first born from the dead,) that 
Christ is called the first born of the whole crea- 
tion, because he is the first who was raised from 
the dead to an immortal life." This is far from 
being "plain ;" but it is plain that, in these two 
verses, the apostle speaks of Christ in two differ- 
ent states : first, in his state "before all things," 
and as the sustainer of all things ; and then in 
his state in "the Church" verse 18, in which is 
added to the former particulars respecting him, 
that "he is the head of the body, the Church, 
who is the beginning, the first born from the 
dead." Again, if, in verses 15, 1G, 17, the apos- 
tle is speaking of what Christ is in and to the 
Church, under the figure of a creation of all 
tilings in heaven and in earth, when he drops 
the figure and teaches us that Christ is the head 
of the Church, the first born from the dead, he 
uses a mere tautology ; nor is there any appa- 
rent reason why ho should not, in the same plain 
terms, have stated his proposition at onco, with- 
out resorting to expressions which, in this view, 
would bo far-fetched and delusive In "the 
Church" ho was "head," and "the first born 
from the dead," the only one who ever rose to 



die no more, and who gives an immortal life to 
those he quickens; but before the Church ex- 
isted, or he himself became incarnate, "before 
all things," says the apostle, he was the "first 
born of the whole creation ;" that is, as the 
fathers understood it, he was born or begotten 
before every creature. But the very terms of 
the text are an abundant refutation of the no- 
tion "that the creation here mentioned is not 
the creation of natural substances." The things 
created are said to be "all things that are in 
heaven and that are in earth;" and, lest the 
invisible spirits in the heaven should be thought 
to be excluded, the apostle adds, "visible and in- 
visible ;" and, lest the invisible things should be 
understood of inferior angels or spiritual beings, 
and the high and glorious beings "who excel in 
strength," and are, in Scripture, invested with 
other elevated properties, should be suspected to 
be exceptions, the apostle becomes still more 
particular, and adds, "whether thrones, or do- 
minions, or principalities, or powers:" terms by 
which the Jews expressed the different orders of 
angels, and which are used in that sense by this 
apostle, Ephesians i. 21. It is a shameless cri- 
ticism of the authors of the New Version, and 
shows how hardly they were pushed by this de- 
cisive passage, that " the apostle does not here 
specify things themselves, namely, celestial and 
terrestrial substances, but merely states of things, 
namely, thrones, dominions, etc., which are only 
ranks and orders of beings in the rational and 
moral world." Was it, then, forgotten, that be- 
fore St. Paul speaks of things in rank and order, 
he speaks of all things collectively which are in 
heaven and in earth, visible and invisible ? If 
so, he then, unquestionably, speaks of "thi?igs 
themselves," or he speaks of nothing. Nor is it 
true that, in the enumeration of thrones, do- 
minions, etc., he speaks of the creation of ranks 
and orders. He does not speak "merely of 
states of things, but of things in states : he does 
not say that Christ created thrones, and dominions, 
and principalities, and powers, which would have 
been more to their purpose, but that he created 
all things, .'whether' (elre) 'they be thrones,' 
etc." The apostle adds, that all things wero 
created by him, and for him, as the end: which 
could not be said of Christ, even if a moral 
creation were intended, since, on the Socinian 
hypothesis that he is a mere man, a prophet of 
God, ho is but the instrument of restoring man 
to obedience and subjection, for the glory and in 
accomplishment of the purposes of God. But 
how is the whole of this description to be made 
applicable to a figurative oreation, to the moral 
restoration of lapsed beings? It is as plainly 
historical as the words of Moses, "In the begin- 



334 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



ning God created the heavens and the earth." 
"Things visible" and "things on earth" com- 
prise, of course, all those objects which, being 
neither sensible nor rational, are incapable of 
moral regeneration, while "things in heaven" 
and " things invisible" comprise the angels which 
never sinned, and who need no repentance and 
no renewal. Such are those gross perversions 
of the word of God which this heresy induces, 
and with such indelible evidence is the Divinity 
of our Lord declared by his acts of power and 
glory, as the Universal Creator. The admi- 
rable observations of Bishop Pearson may, pro- 
perly, conclude what has been said on this im- 
portant passage of inspired writ. 

"In these words our Saviour is expressly 
styled the 'first born of every creature,' that is, 
begotten by God, as ' the Son of his love,' ante- 
cedently to all other emanations, before any thing 
proceeded from him, or was framed and created 
by him. And that precedency is presently proved 
by this undeniable argument, that all other ema- 
nations or productions come from him, and what- 
soever received its being by creation was by him 
created, which assertion is delivered in the most 
proper, full, and frequent expressions imagina- 
ble: First, in the plain language of Moses, as 
most consonant to his description : ' for by him 
were all things created that are in heaven, and 
that are in earth' — signifying thereby that he 
speaketh of the same creation. Secondly, by a 
division which Moses never used, as describing 
the production only of corporeal substances : 
lest, therefore, those immaterial beings might 
seem exempted from the Son's creation, because 
omitted in Moses's description, he addeth 'visi- 
ble and invisible ;' and lest in that invisible 
world, among the many degrees of the celestial 
hierarchy, any order might seem exempted from 
an essential dependence on him, he nameth those 
which are of greatest eminence, 'whether they 
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or 
powers,' and under them comprehendeth all the 
rest. Nor doth it yet suffice thus to extend the 
object of his power, by asserting all things to be 
made by him, except it be so understood as to 
acknowledge the sovereignty of his person, and 
the authority of his action. For lest we should 
conceive the Son of God framing the world as a 
mere instrumental cause which worketh by and 
for another, he showeth him as well the final as 
the efficient cause ; for, ' all things were created 
by him and for him.' Lastly, whereas all things 
first receive their being by creation, and when 
they have received it, continue in the same by 
virtue of God's conservation, ' in whom we live 
and move and have our being :' lest in any thing 
we should not depend immediately upon the Son 



j of God, he is described as the conserver, as well 
as the Creator, for < He is before all things, and 
by him all things consist.' If, then, we consider 
these two latter verses by themselves, we cannot 
deny that they are a most complete description 
of the Creator of the world ; and if they were 
spoken of God the Father, could be no way in- 
jurious to his majesty, who is nowhere more 
plainly or fully set forth unto us as the Maker 
of the world." 

But our Lord himself professes to do other 
acts, besides the great act of creating, which are 
peculiar to God ; and such acts are also attributed 
to him by his inspired apostles. His preserving 
of all things made by him has already been men- 
tioned, and which implies not only a Divine 
power, but also ubiquity, since he must be present 
to all things, in order to their constant conserva- 
tion. The final destruction of the whole frame 
of material nature is also as expressly attributed 
to him as its creation. " Thou, Lord, in the be- 
ginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, 
and the heavens are the works of thine hands : 
they shall perish, but thou remainest — and as a 
vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they 
shall be changed." Here omnipotent power is 
seen " changing," and removing, and taking away 
the vast universe of material things with the 
same ease as it was spoken into being and at 
first disposed into order. Generally, too, our 
Lord claims to perform the works of his Father. 
"If I do not the works of my Father, believe 
me not; but if I do, though ye believe not 
me, believe the works." Should this, even, be 
restrained to the working of miracles, the argu- 
ment remains the same. No prophet, no apostle, 
ever used such language in speaking of his mi- 
raculous gifts. Here Christ declares that he per- 
forms the works of his Father : not merely that 
the Father worked by him, but that he himself 
did the works of God — which can only mean 
works proper or peculiar to God, and which a 
Divine power only could effect. 1 So the Jews 
understood him, for, upon this declaration, "they 
sought again to take him." That this power of 
working miracles was in him an original power, 
appears also from his bestowing that power upon 
his disciples. "Behold, I give unto you power 
to tread on serpents, and scorpions, and over all 
the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by 
any means hurt you." Luke x. 19. "And he 
gave them power and authority over all devils, 
and to cure diseases." Luke ix. 1. Their mira- 



1 " Si non facio ea ipsa divina opera, qua3 Pater metis 
facit; si qua? facio. lion habent divina? rirtutis specimen." 
— Rosenmtjller. " Opera Patris mei, i. e., quae Fatri. sive 
Deo, sunt propria: qua? a nemine alio fieri queunt." — Poli 
Synop. 



CH. XV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



335 



cles were, therefore, to be performed in his name, 
by which, the power of effecting them was ex- 
pressly reserved to him. "In my name shall 
they cast out devils;" "and his name through 
faith in his name hath made this man strong." 

The manner in which our Lord promises the 
Holy Spirit is further in proof that he performs 
acts peculiar to the Godhead. He speaks of 
" sending the Spirit" in the language of one who 
had an original right and an inherent power to 
bestow that wondrous gift which was to impart 
miraculous energies, and heavenly wisdom, com- 
fort, and purity to human minds. Does the 
Father send the Spirit ? He claims the same 
power, — "the Comforter, whom / will send unto 
you." The Spirit is, on this account, called 
"the Spirit of Christ," and " the Spirit of God." 
Thus the giving of the Spirit is indifferently 
ascribed to the Son and to the Father; but when 
that gift is mediately bestowed by the apostles, no 
such language is assumed by them : they pray to 
Christ and to the Father in his name, and he, 
their exalted Master, sheds forth the blessing — 
" therefore being by the right hand of God ex- 
alted, and having received of the Father the 
promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth 
this, which ye now see and hear." 

Another of the unquestionably peculiar acts 
of God, is the forgiveness of sins. In the mani- 
fest reason of the thing, no one can forgive but 
the party offended ; and as sin is the transgres- 
sion of the law of God, he, alone, is the offended 
party, and he only, therefore, can forgive. 
Mediately, others may declare his pardoning acts, 
or the conditions on which he determines to for- 
give ; but, authoritatively, there can be no actual 
forgiveness of sins against God but by God him- 
self. But Christ forgives sin authoritatively, and 
he is, therefore, God. One passage is all that is 
necessary to prove this. " He said to the sick of 
the palsy, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be for- 
given thee." The scribes, who were present, under- 
stood that he did this authoritatively, and assumed, 
in this case, the rights of Divinity. They there- 
fore said among themselves, " This man blasphe- 
meth." What, then, is the conduct of our Lord? 
Does he admit that he only ministerially declared, 
in consequence of some revelation, that God had 
forgiven the sins of the paralytic ? On the con- 
trary, ho works a miracle to prove to them that 
the very right which they disputed was vested in 
him, that he had this authority — "but that ye 
may know that the Son of man hath lowiai on 
earth to forgive sins, (then saith ho to the sick 
of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, ami go unto 
thine own bouse." 

Such were the acts performed by our Saviour 

in the days of his sojourn on oarth, and which 



1 he is represented, by his inspired apostles, to be 
: still constantly performing, or as having the 
power to perform. If any creature is capable 
of doing the same mighty works, then is all dis- 
tinction between created, finite natures, and the 
uncreated Infinite destroyed. If such a distinc- 
tion, in fact, exists ; if neither creation, preser- 
vation, nor salvation, be possible to a mere crea- 
ture, we have seen that they are possible to 
Christ, because he actually creates, preserves, 
and saves ; and the inevitable conclusion is, 

THAT HE IS VERY GOD. 



CHAPTER XV. 

DIVINE WORSHIP PAID TO CHRIST. 

From Christ's own acts we may pass to those 
of his disciples, and particularly to one which 
unequivocally marks their opinion respecting his 
Divinity : they worship him as a Divine person, 
and they enjoin this also upon Christians to the 
end of time. If Christ, therefore, is not God, 
the apostles were idolaters, and Christianity is a 
system of impiety. This is a point so important 
as to demand a close investigation. 

The fact that Divine worship was paid to Christ 
by his disciples must be first established. In- 
stances of falling down at the feet of Jesus and 
worshipping him are so frequent in the Gospel, 
that it is not necessary to select the instances 
which are so familiar ; and though we allow that 
the word trpooKwelv is sometimes used to express 
that lowly reverence with which, in the east, it 
has been always customary to salute persons con- 
sidered as greatly superior, and especially rulers 
and sovereigns, it is yet the same word which, in 
a great number of instances, is used to express 
the worship of the supreme God. We are, then, 
to collect the intention of the act of worship, 
whether designed as a token of profound civil re- 
spect, or of real and Divine adoration, from the 
circumstances of the instances on record. When 
a leper comes and "worships" Christ, professing 
to believe that he had the power of healing dis- 
eases, and that in himself, which power he could 
exercise at his will, all which he expresses by 
saying, "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make 
me clean," we see a Jew retaining that faith of 
the Jewish Church in its purity, which had boon 
corrupted among so many of his nation, that the 
Messiah was to be a Divine person ; and, viewing 
our Lord under that character, ho regarded his 
miraculous powers as original ami personal, and 
so hesitated not to worship him. Sere, then, is 
a case in which the circumstanoos oloavly show 



336 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



that the worship was religious and supreme. 
When the man who had been cured of blindness 
by Jesus, and who had defended his prophetic 
character before the council, before he knew that 
he had a higher character than that of a prophet^ 
was met in private by Jesus, and instructed in 
the additional fact that he was "the Son of 
God," he worshipped him. "Jesus heard that 
they had cast him out, and when he had found 
him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the 
Son of God ? He answered and said, Who is he, 
Lord, that I might believe on him ? And Jesus said 
unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he 
that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I be- 
lieve, and he worshipped him" — worshipped 
him, be it observed, under his character, "Son 
of God," a title which, we have already seen, 
was regarded by the Jews as implying actual 
Divinity, and which the man understood to raise 
Jesus far above the rank of a mere prophet. 
The worship paid by this man must, therefore, 
in its intention, have been supreme, for it was 
offered to an acknowledged Divine person, the 
Son of God. When the disciples, fully yielding 
to the demonstration of our Lord's Messiahship, 
arising out of a series of splendid miracles, re- 
cognized him also under his personal character, 
"they came and worshipped him, saying, Of a 
truth thou art the Son of God!" Matt. xiv. 33. 
When Peter, upon the miraculous draught of fishes, 
"fell at his feet," and said, " Depart from me, for 
I am a sinful man, Lord," these expressions 
themselves mark as strongly the awe and appre- 
hension which is produced in the breast of a sin- 
ful man, when he feels himself in the presence 
of Divinity itself, as when Isaiah exclaims, in 
his vision of the Divine glory, "Wo is me, 
for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean 
lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of un- 
clean lips ; for mine eyes have seen the King, 
the Lord of hosts." 

The circumstances, then, which accompany 
these instances make it evident that the worship 
here paid to our Lord was of the highest order ; 
and they will serve to explain several other cases 
in the Gospels, similar in the act, though not 
accompanied with illustrative circumstances so 
explicit. But there is one general consideration 
of importance which applies to them all. Such 
acts of lowly prostration as are called worship 
were chiefly paid to civil governors. Now our 
Lord cautiously avoided giving the least sanction 
to the notion that he had any civil pretensions, 
and that his object was to make himself king. 
It would, therefore, have been a marked incon- 
sistency to suffer himself to be saluted with the 
homage and prostration proper to civil governors, 
and which, indeed, was not always in Judca 



rendered to them. He did not receive this 
homage, then, under the character of a civil 
ruler or sovereign; and under what character 
could he receive it? Not in compliance with 
the haughty custom of the Jewish rabbis, who 
exacted great external reverence from their dis- 
ciples, for he sharply reproved their haughtiness, 
and love of adulation and honor : not as a simple 
teacher of religion, for his apostles might then have 
imitated his example, since, upon the Socinian 
hypothesis of his mere manhood, they, when they 
had collected disciples and founded Churches, 
had as clear a right to this distinction as he him- 
self, had it only been one of appropriate and 
common courtesy sanctioned by their Master. 
But when do we read of their receiving worship 
without spurning it on the very ground that 
they were "men of like passions" with others? 
How, then, is it to be accounted for that our 
Lord never forbade or discouraged this practice 
as to himself, or even shunned it ? In no other 
way than that he was conscious of his natural 
right to the homage thus paid; and that he 
accepted it as the expression of a faith which, 
though sometimes wavering, because of the 
obscurity which darkened the minds of his 
followers, and which even his own conduct, 
mysterious as it necessarily was till "he openly 
showed himself" after his passion, tended to pro- 
duce, yet sometimes pierced through the cloud, 
and saw and acknowledged, in the Word made 
flesh, "the glory as of the only-begotten of the 
Father, full of grace and truth." 

But to proceed with instances of worship 
subsequent to our Lord's resurrection and ascen- 
sion: "He was parted from them, and carried 
up into heaven, and they worshipped him, and 
returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Luke 
xxiv. 51, 52. Here the act must necessarily have 
been one of Divine adoration, since it was per- 
formed after "he was parted from them," and 
cannot be resolved into the customary token of 
personal respect paid to superiors. This was 
always done in the presence of the superior; 
never by the Jews in his absence. 

When the apostles were assembled to fill up 
the place of Judas, the lots being prepared, they 
pray, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of 
all men, show whether of these two thou hast 
chosen." That this prayer is addressed to Christ 
is clear from its being his special prerogative to 
choose his own disciples, who, therefore, styled 
themselves "apostles," not of the Father, but 
"of Jesus Christ." Here, then, is a direct act 
of worship, because an act of prayer; and our 
Lord is addressed as he who "knows the hearts 
of all men." Nor is this more than he himself 
claims in the Revelation : "And all the Churches 



CH. XV.] 

shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins 
and the heart." 

When Stephen, the protomartyr, was stoned, 
the writer of the Acts of the Apostles records 
two instances of prayer offered to our Lord by 
this man "full of the Holy Ghost," and, there- 
fore, according to this declaration, under plenary 
inspiration : — " Lord Jesus ! receive my spirit ! " 
"Lord, lay not this sin to their charge!" 
In the former he acknowledges Christ to be the 
disposer of the eternal states of men: in the 
latter he acknowledges him to be the governor 
and judge of men, having power to remit, pass 
by, or visit their sins. All these are manifestly 
Divine acts, which sufficiently show that St. Ste- 
phen addressed his prayers to Christ as God. The 
note from Lindsay, inserted in the Socinian 
version, shows the manner in which the Socinians 
attempt to evade this instance of direct prayer 
being offered by the apostles to Christ. "This 
address of Stephen to Jesus, when he actually 
saw him, does not authorize us to offer prayers 
to him now he is invisible." And this is seriously 
alleged ! How does the circumstance of an object 
of prayer and religious worship being seen or 
unseen alter the case ? May a man, when seen, be 
an object of prayer, to whom, unseen, it would 
be unlawful to pray ? The papists, if this were 
true, would find a new refutation of their practice 
of invocating dead saints furnished by the Soci- 
nians. Were they alive and seen, prayer to them 
would be lawful ; but now they are invisible, it 
is idolatry! Even image- worship would derive 
from this casuistry a sort of apology, as the seen 
image is, at least, the visible representation of 
the invisible saint or angel. But let the case be 
put fairly : suppose a dying person to pray to a 
man visible and near his bed, " Lord, receive my 
spirit: Lord, lay not sin to the charge of my 
enemies:" who sees not that this would be gross 
idolatry ? And yet, if Jesus be a mere man, the 
idolatry is the same, though that man be in 
heaven. It will not alter the case for the Soci- 
nian to say that the man Jesus is exalted to 
great dignity and rule in the invisible world ; for 
he is, after all, on their showing, but a servant, 
not a dispenser of the eternal states of men, not 
an avenger or a passer by of sin in his own 
right, that he should lay sin to the charge of any 
one, or not lay it, as he might be desired to do 
by a disciple ; and if St. Stephen had these views 
of him, he would not surely have asked of a 
servant what a servant had no power to grant. 
Indeed, the Socinians themselves give up the 
point, by denying that Christ is lawfully the 
object of prayer. There, however, he is prayed 
to, beyond all controversy; and his. right and 
power to dispose of the disembodied spirits of 
22 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



337 



men is as much recognized in the invocation of 
the dying Stephen, as the same right and power 
in the Father in the last prayer of our Lord him- 
self: "Father, into thy hands I commend my 
spirit." 

To Dr. Priestley's objection, that this is an in- 
considerable instance, and is to be regarded as a 
mere ejaculation, Bishop Horsley forcibly replies : 
"St. Stephen's short ejaculatory address you had 
not forgotten ; but you say it is very inconsider- 
able. But, sir, why is it inconsiderable ? Is it 
because it was only an ejaculation ? Ejaculations 
are often prayers of the most fervid kind : the 
most expressive of self-abasement and adoration. 
Is it for its brevity that it is inconsiderable? 
What, then, is the precise length of words which 
is requisite to make a prayer an act of worship ? 
Was this petition preferred on an occasion of dis- 
tress, on which a Divinity might be naturally 
invoked ? Was it a petition for a succor which 
none but a Divinity could grant? If this was 
the case, it was surely an act of worship. Is 
the situation of the worshipper the circumstance 
which, in your judgment, sir, lessens the author- 
ity of his example ? You suppose, perhaps, 
some consternation of his faculties, arising from 
distress and fear. The history justifies no such 
supposition. It describes the utterance of the 
final prayer as a deliberate act of one who knew 
his situation and possessed his understanding. 
After praying for himself, he kneels down to 
pray for his persecutors ; and such was the com- 
posure with which he died, although the manner 
of his death was the most tumultuous and terri- 
fying, that, as if he had expired quietly upon 
his bed, the sacred historian says, 'he fell 
asleep.' If, therefore, you would insinuate that 
St. Stephen was not himself when he sent forth 
this ' short ejaculatory address to Christ,' the 
history refutes you. If he was himself, you can- 
not justify his prayer to Christ while you deny 
that Christ is God, upon any principle that 
might not equally justify you or me in praying 
to the blessed Stephen. If St. Stephen, in the 
full possession of his faculties, prayed to him 
who is no God, why do we reproach the Roman- 
ist when he chants the litany of his saints ?" 

St. Paul, also, in that affliction which he 
metaphorically describes by "a thorn in the 
flesh," "sought the Lord thrice" that it might 
depart from him ; and tho answer shows that 
"the Lord" to whom ho addressed his prayer 
was Christ; for he adds, "And he said unto me, 
My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength 
is made perfect in weaknoss: most gladly, there- 
fore, will I glory in my infirmities, that the row ru 
of Christ may rest upon me :" clearly signifying 
the power of him who had said, in answer to his 



338 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



prayer, "My strength, dvvafiic, power, is made 
perfect in -weakness." 

St. Paul also prays to Christ, conjointly with 
the Father, in behalf of the Thessalonians. ' ' Now 
our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even 
our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given 
us everlasting consolation, and good hope through 
grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in 
every good work.'''' 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. In like 
manner he invokes our Lord to grant his spiritual 
presence to Timothy : " The Lord Jesus Christ be 
with thy spirit." 2 Tim. iv. 22. The invoking of 
Christ is, indeed, adduced by St. Paul as a 
distinctive characteristic of Christians, so that 
among all the primitive Churches this practice 
must have been universal. "Unto the Church 
of God which is at Corinth, to them that are 
sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, 
with all that in evert place call upon the 
name op Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and 
ours." 1 Cor. i. 2. "It appears, from the ex- 
pression here and elsewhere used, that to invocate 
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ was a practice 
characterizing and distinguishing Christians from 
infidels." (Dr. Benson.) Thus St. Paul is said, 
before his conversion, to have had "authority 
from the chief-priests to bind all that call upon 
thy name." The Socinian criticism is, that 
the phrase hnLnalelodai to ovo/ia may be trans- 
lated either "to call on the name," or be called 
by the name ; and they, therefore, render 1 Cor. 
i. 2, "all that are called by the name of Jesus 
Christ." If, however, all that can be said in 
favor of this rendering is, that the verb may be 
rendered passively, how is it that they choose to 
render it actively in all places except where 
their system is to be served ? This itself is 
suspicious. But it is not necessary to produce 
the refutations of this criticism given by several 
of their learned opponents, who have shown that 
the verb, followed by an accusative case, usually, 
if not constantly, is used in its active significa- 
tion, to call upon, to invoke. One passage is suffi- 
cient to prove both the active signification of the 
phrase, when thus applied, and also that to call 
upon the name of Christ is an act of the highest 
worship: "For whosoever shall call upon the 
name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom. x. 13. 
This is quoted from the Prophet Joel. St. Peter, 
in his sermon on the day of pentecost, makes 
use of it as a prophecy of Christ ; and the argu- 
ment of St. Paul imperatively requires us also 
to understand it of him. Now this prophecy 
proves that the phrase in question is used for 
invocation, since it is not true that whosoever 
shall' be called by the name of the Lord will be 
saved, but those only who rightly call upon it: 
it proves, also, that the calling upon the name 



| of the Lord, here mentioned, is a religious act, 
for it is calling upon the name of Jehovah, the 
word used by the Prophet Joel, the consequence 
of which act of faith and worship is salvation. 
" This text, indeed, presents us with a double 
argument in favor of our Lord's Divinity. First, 
it applies to him what, by the Prophet Joel, is 
spoken of Jehovah : secondly, it affirms him to 
be the object of religious adoration. Either of 
these particulars does, indeed, imply the other ; 
for if he be Jehovah, he must be the object of 
religious adoration; and if he be the object of 
religious adoration, he must be Jehovah." — 
Bishop Horne. 

In the Revelation, too, we find St. John wor- 
shipping Christ, " falling at his feet as one dead." 
St. Paul also declares " that at the name of Jesus 
evert knee should bow," which, in Scripture 
language, signifies an act of religious worship. 
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

But this homage and adoration of Christ is not 
confined to men : it is practiced among heavenly 
beings. "And again, when he bringeth in the first- 
begotten into the world, he saith, And let all 

THE ANGELS OP GOD WORSHIP HIM." For the 

purpose of evading the force of these words, the 
Socinians, in their version, have chosen the ab- 
surdity of rendering ayyeloi, throughout this 
chapter, by "messengers ;" but in the next chap- 
ter, as though the subject would by that time 
be out of the reader's mind, they return to the 
common version, "angels." Thus they make the 
"spirits and flames of fire," or, as they render 
it, "winds and flames of lightning," to be the 
ancient prophets or messengers, not angels ; and 
of these same prophets and messengers, who lived 
several thousand years ago, their translation 
affirms that they "are sent forth to minister for 
them who shall be [in future!) heirs of salvation." 
The absurdity is so apparent, that it is scarcely 
necessary to add that, in the New Testament, 
though "angel" is sometimes applied to men, 
yet "angels of God" is a phrase never used but 
to express an order of heavenly intelligences. 

If, however, either prophets or angels were com- 
manded to worship Christ, his Divinity would be 
equally proved, and, therefore, the note on this 
text in the New Version teaches, that "to wor- 
ship Christ" here means to acknowledge him as 
their superior ; and urges that the text is cited 
from the LXX., (Deut. xxxii. 43,) "where it is 
spoken of the Hebrew nation, and, therefore, 
cannot be understood of religious worship." But 
whoever will turn to the LXX. will see that it is 
not the Hebrew nation, but Jehovah, who is ex- 
hibited in that passage as the object of worship ; 
and if, therefore, the text were cited from the 



CH. XV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



339 



book of Deuteronomy, and the genuineness of 
the passage in the LXX. were allowed, for it is 
not in the present Hebrew text, it would only 
afford another proof that, in the mind of the 
apostles, the Jehovah of the Old Testament and 
the Christ of the New are the same being, and 
that equal worship is due to both. We have, 
however, an unquestioned text in the Old Testa- 
ment, (Psalm xcvii. 7,) from which the quotation 
is obviously made ; where, in the Hebrew, it is 
"worship him, all ye gods," a probable ellipsis 
for " the angels of the Aleim ;" for the LXX. uses 
the word " angels." This psalm the apostle, 
therefore, understood of Christ, and in this the 
old Jewish interpreters agree with him j 1 and 
though he is not mentioned in it by any of his 
usual Old Testament titles, except that of Jeho- 
vah, it clearly predicts the overthrow of idolatry 
by the introduction of the kingdom of this Jeho- 
vah. It follows, then, that as idolatry was not 
overthrown by Judaism, but by the kingdom of 
Christ, it is Christ, as the head and author of 
this kingdom, of whom the Psalmist speaks, and 
whom he sees receiving the worship of the angels 
of God upon its introduction and establishment. 
This, also, agrees with the words by which the 
apostle introduces the quotation. "And again, 
when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the 
world" — the habitable world; which intimates 
that it was upon some solemn occasion, when 
engaged in some solemn act, that the angels 
were commanded to worship him, and this act is 
represented in the ninety-seventh Psalm as the 
establishment of his kingdom. Bishop Horsley's 
remarks on this psalm are equally just and 
beautiful : 

"That Jehovah's kingdom in some sense or 
other is the subject of this Divine song, cannot 
be made a question, for thus it opens — 'Jehovah 
reigneth.' The psalm, therefore, must be under- 
stood either of God's natural kingdom over his 
whole creation ; of his particular kingdom over 
the Jews, his chosen people ; or of that kingdom 
which is called in the New Testament the king- 
dom of heaven, the kingdom of God, or the 
kingdom of Christ. For of any other kingdom 
beside these three, man never heard or read. 
God's peculiar kingdom over the Jews cannot be 
the subject of this psalm, because all nations of 
the earth arc called upon to rejoice in the 
acknowledgment of this great truth, 'Jehovah 
reigneth, let the earth rejoice: let the many isles 
be glad thereof.' The many isles are the various 
regions of the habitable world. 

"The same consideration, that Jehovah's king- 



1 "Psalmos omneH a XCTII. ad OT. in so continoro mysto- 
rium Messlw, dixit David Klmchi."— Roumnnua, 



dom is mentioned as a subject of general thanks- 
giving, proves that God's universal dominion over 
his whole creation cannot be the kingdom in the 
prophet's mind. For in this kingdom a great 
majority of the ancient world, the idolaters, were 
considered, not as subjects, who might rejoice in 
the glory of their monarch, but as rebels, who 
had every thing to fear from his just resentment. 
"It remains, therefore, that Christ's kingdom 
is that kingdom of Jehovah which the inspired 
poet celebrates as the occasion of universal joy. 
And this will further appear by the sequel of the 
song. After four verses, in which the tran- 
scendent glory, the irresistible power, and in- 
scrutable perfection of the Lord, who to the joy 
of all nations reigneth, are painted in poetical 
images, taken partly from the awful scene on 
Sinai which accompanied the delivery of the 
law, partly from other manifestations of God's 
presence with the Israelites in their journey 
through the wilderness, he proceeds, in the 
sixth verse, ' The heavens declare his righteous- 
ness, and all the people see his glory.' We read 
in the 19th Psalm, that ' the heavens declare the 
glory of God.' And the glory of God, the power 
and the intelligence of the Creator, is indeed 
visibly declared in the fabric of the material 
world. But I cannot see how the structure of 
the heavens can demonstrate the righteousness of 
God. Wisdom and power may be displayed in 
the contrivance of an inanimate machine ; but 
righteousness cannot appear in the arrangement 
of the parts, or the direction of the motions of 
lifeless matter. The heavens, therefore, in their 
external structure, cannot declare their Maker's 
righteousness. But the heavens, in another 
sense, attested the righteousness of Christ, when 
the voice from heaven declared him the beloved 
Son of God, in whom the Father was well 
pleased ; and when the preternatural darkness 
of the sun at the crucifixion, and other agonies 
of nature, drew that confession from the heathen 
centurion who attended the execution, that the 
suffering Jesus was the Son of God. 'And all 
the people see his glory.' The word people, in 
the singular, for the most part denotes Cod- 
chosen people, the Jewish nation, unless any 
other particular people happen to be the subject 
of discourse. But peojilcs, in the plural, is put 
for all the other races of mankind as distinct 
from the chosen people. The word here is in 
the plural form, 'And all the peoples see his 
glory.' But when or in what did any o( the 
peoples, the idolatrous nations, see the glory oi' 
God? Literally, they never saw his glory. The 

effulgence of tho Sheohinah never was displayed 

to them, except when it blazed forth upon the 
Egyptians to strike them with B panic: or when 



340 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART n. 



the towering pillar of flame, which marshalled 
the Israelites in the wilderness, was seen by the 
inhabitants of Palestine and Arabia as a threat- 
ening meteor in their sky. Intellectually, no 
idolaters ever saw the glory of God, for they 
never acknowledged his power and Godhead: 
had they thns seen his glory, they had ceased to 
be idolaters. Bnt all the peoples, by the preach- 
ing of the gospel, saw the glory of Christ. They 
saw it literally in the miracles performed by his 
apostles : they saw it spiritually when they per- 
ceived the purity of his precepts, when they 
acknowledged the truth of his doctrine, when 
they embraced the profession of Christianity, 
and owned Christ for their Saviour and their 
God. The Psalmist goes on, 'Confounded be all 
they that serve graven images, that boast them- 
selves of idols. Worship him, all ye gods.' In 
the original this verse has not at all the form of 
a malediction, which it has acquired in our trans- 
lation from the use of the strong word confounded. 
-Let them be ashamed.' This is the utmost that 
the Psalmist says. The prayer that they may be 
: shamed of their folly and repent of it, is very 
different from an imprecation of confusion. But 
in truth the Psalmist rather seems to speak pro- 
phetically, without any thing either of prayer or 
imprecation — 'they shall be ashamed.' Having 
seen the glory of Christ, they shall be ashamed of 
the idols which in the times of ignorance they 
worshipped. In the 8th and 9th verses, looking 
forward to the times when the fulness of the 
Gentiles shall be come in, and the remnant of 
Israel shall turn to the Lord, he describes the 
daughter of Judah as rejoicing at the news of 
the mercy extended to the Gentile world, and 
exulting in the universal extent of Jehovah's 
kingdom, and the general acknowledgment of his 
Godhead." — Nine Sermons. 

The argument of the apostle is thus made 
clear : he proves Christ superior to angels, and 
therefore Divine, because angels themselves are 
commanded "to worship him." 1 Xor is this the 
only prophetic psalm in which the religious wor- 
ship of Messiah is predicted. The 72d Psalm, 
alone, is full of this doctrine. "They shall fear 
thee as long as the sun and moon endure." "AD 
kii _? shall worship (or, fall down*) before him: 
all nations shall serve him." "Prater shall 
be made ever for (or, to) him, and daily shall he 

be PRAISED." 

Finally, as to the direct worship of Christ, the 
book of Kevelation, in its scenic representations, 
exhibits him as, equally with the Father, the 



1 ; - Ceterum recte argunientatur apostolus : si angeli 
. ilium maximum adorare debent, ergo sunt illo 
inferiores." — RoBKSKinXEB in loc. 



. 



object of the worship of angels and of glorified 
. saints ; and, in chapter fifth, places every crea- 
ture in the universe, the inhabitants of hell 
only excepted, in prostrate adoration at his foot- 
stool. "And every creature which is in heaven, 
and on the earth, and under the earth, and such 
as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard 
I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and 
power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, 
axd rxio the Lamb for ever and ever." 

To these instances are to be added all the 
doxologles to Christ, in common with the Fathei 
and the Holy Spirit, and all the bexedictioxs 
made in his name in common with theirs ; for all 
these are forms of worship. The first consist of 
ascriptions of equal and Divine honors, with 
grateful recognitions of the Being addressed, as 
the author of benefits received : the second are 
a solemn blessing of others in the name c: 
and were derived from the practice of the Jewish 
priests and the still older patriarchs, who blessed 
others in the name of Jehovah, as his repre- 
sentatives. 

Of the first, the following may be given as a 
few out of many instances : ' • The Lord shall 
deliver me from every evil work, and will pre- 
serve me unto his heavenly kingdom : to whom be 
glory for ever and ever." 2 Tim iv. 18. "But 
grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ : to him be glory both 
now and for ever. Amen." '2 Pet. iii. 18. "Unto 
him that loved us, and washed us from our sins 
in his own blood, and hath made us kings and 
priests unto God and his Father: to him be 
glory and D03ITXIOX for ever and ever. Amen." 
Rev. i. 5, 6. "When we consider the great 
difference between these doxologies and the com- 
mendations but sparingly given in the Scriptures 
to mere men : the serious and reverential manner 
in which they are introduced : and the superla- 
tive praise they convey, so far surpassing what 
humanity can deserve, we cannot but suppose 
that the Being to whom they refer is really 
Divine. The ascription of eternal glory and 
everlasting dominion, if addressed to any creature, 
however exalted, would be idolatrous and pro- 
fane." (Holden's Testimonies.) Of benedictions, 
the commencement and conclusion of several of 
the epistles furnish instances, so regular in their 
form, as to make it clearly appear that the 
apostles and the priests of the Xew Testament 
constantly blessed the people ministerially in the 
name of Christ, as one of the blessed trinity. 
This consideration alone shows that the bene- 
dictions are not, as the Socinians would take 
them, to be considered as cursory expressions of 
good-will. "Grace to you, and peace from God 
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." This, 



CH. XV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



341 



with little variation, is the common form of salu- 
tation; and the usual parting benediction is, 
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you 
all ;" or, more fully, "The grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion 
of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." In answer 
to the Socinian perversion, that these are mere 
"wishes," it has been well and wisely observed 
that "this objection overlooks, or notices very 
slightly, the point on which the whole question 
turns, the nature of the blessings sought, and the 
qualities which they imply in the Person as whose 
donation they are deliberately desired. These 
blessings are not of that kind which one creature 
is competent to bestow upon another. They refer 
to the judicial state of an accountable being 
before God, to the remission of moral offences, 
to the production and preservation of certain 
mental qualities which none can efficaciously and 
immediately give but He who holds the dominion 
of human minds and feelings, and to the enjoy- 
ments of supreme and endless felicity. They 
are grace, mercy, ^ndpeace: — Grace, the free favor 
of the Eternal Majesty to those who have for- 
feited every claim to it; such favor as, in its own 
nature and in the contemplation of the suppli- 
cant, is the sole and effective cause of deliverance 
from the greatest evils, and acquisition of the 
greatest good. Mercy, the compassion of infinite 
goodness, conferring its richest bestowments of 
holiness and happiness on the ruined, miserable, 
and helpless. Peace, the tranquil and delightful 
feeling which results from the rational hope of 
possessing these enjoyments. These are the 
highest blessings that Omnipotent Benevolence 
can give, or a dependent nature receive. To 
desire such blessings either in the mode of direct 
address or in that of precatory wish, from any 
being who is not possessed of omnipotent good- 
ness, would be, not 'innocent and proper,' but 
sinful and absurd in the highest degree. When, 
therefore, we find every apostle whose epistles 
are extant, pouring out his 'expressions of de- 
sire,' with the utmost simplicity and energy, for 
these blessings, as proceeding from 'our Lord 
Jesus Christ,' equally with 'God our Father,' we 
cannot but regard it as the just and necessary 
conclusion that Christ and the Father are one in 
the perfection which originates the highest bless- 
ings, and in the honor due for the gift of those 
blessings."-— SajJTH'S Person of Christ. 

Bo clearly does tho New Testament show that 

Supreme worship whs paid to Christ, :is well as 

to the Father; and the practice obtained as. a 
matter of course, as a matter quite undisputed, 
in the primitive Churoh, ami has so oontinued, 
in all orthodox churches, to this day. Tims 
heathen writers represented the flrBt christians 



as worshippers of Christ ; and as for the prac- 
tice of the primitive Church, it is not necessary 
to quote passages from the fathers, which are so 
well known, or so easily found in all books which 
treat on this subject. It is sufficient evidence 
of the practice, that when, in the fourth century, 
the Arians taught that our Lord was a super- 
angelic creature only, they departed not, in the 
instance of worship, from the homage paid to 
him in the universal Church, but continued to 
adore Christ. On this ground the orthodox justly 
branded them with idolatry; and, in order to 
avoid the force of the charge, they invented 
those sophistical distinctions as to superior and 
inferior worship which the papists, in later times, 
introduced, in order to excuse the worship of 
saints and angels. Even the old Socinians allowed 
Christ to be the object of religious adoration: so 
impossible was it, even for them, to oppose them- 
selves all at once to the reproving and condemn- 
ing universal example of the Church of Christ in 
all ages. 

Having, then, established the fact of the wor- 
ship of Christ by his immediate followers, whose 
precepts and example have, in this matter, been 
followed by all the faithful, let us consider the 
religious principles which the first disciples held, 
in order to determine whether they could have 
so worshipped Christ, unless his true Divinity 
had been, with them, a fundamental and univer- 
sally received doctrine. They were Jews ; and 
Jews of an age in which their nation had long 
shaken off its idolatrous propensities, and which 
was distinguished by its zeal against all worship, 
or expressions of religious trust and hope being 
directed, not only to false gods, (to idols,) but to 
creatures. The great principle of the law was, 
"Thou shalt have no other gods before (or, 
beside) me." It was, therefore, commanded by 
Moses, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God: 
him shalt thou serve ;" which words are quoted 
by our Lord in his temptation, when solicited to 
worship Satan, so as to prove that to fear God 
and to serve him are expressions which signify 
Worship, and that all other beings but God are 
excluded from it. "Thou shalt worship the 
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." 
The argument, too, in the quotation, is not that 
Satan had no right to receive worship because 
he was an evil spirit; but that, whatever he 
might bo, or whoever should make that claim, 
God only is to be worshipped. By this, also, we 
see that Christianity made no alteration in Juda- 
ism, as to tho artiele oi' dootrine, for our Lord 
himself here adopts it as his own principle : lie 

quotes it from the writings of Moses, and bo 
transmitted it, on his own authority, to his 

followers. Accordingly, we find the apostles 



342 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



teaching and practicing this as a first principle 
of their religion. St. Paul (Rom. i. 21-25) 
charges the heathen with not glorifying God when 
they knew him, and worshipping and serving 
"the creature more than (or, beside) the Creator, 
who is blessed for ever." "Wherein the apostle," 
says Waterland, "plainly intimates that the 
Creator only is to be served, and that the idolatry 
of the heathens lay in their worshipping of the 
creature. He does not blame them for giving sove- 
reign or absolute worship to creatures — they could 
scarcely be so silly as to imagine there could 
be more than one supreme God — but for giving 
any worship to them at all, sovereign or inferior." 
[Defence of Queries.) Again: when he mentions 
it as one of the crimes of the Galatians, previous 
to their conversion to Christianity, that they 
"did service unto them which by nature are 
no gods," he plainly intimates that no one has a 
title to religious service but he who is by nature 
God ; and, if so, he himself could not worship or 
do service to Christ, unless he believed him to 
possess a natural and essential Divinity. 

The practice of the apostles, too, was in strict 
accordance with this principle. Thus, when 
worship was offered to St. Peter, by Cornelius, 
who certainly did not take him to be God, he 
forbade it : so also Paul and Barnabas forbade it 
at Lystra, with expressions of horror, when 
offered to them. An eminent instance is recorded, 
also, of the exclusion of all creatures, however 
exalted, from this honor, in Rev. xix. 10, where 
the angel refuses to receive so much as the out- 
ward act of adoration, giving this rule and maxim 
upon it, "Worship God;" intimating thereby, 
that God only is to be worshipped : that all acts 
of religious worship are appropriated to God 
alone. He does not say, "Worship God, and 
whom God shall appoint to be worshipped," as 
if he had appointed any beside God; nor "Wor- 
ship God with sovereign worship," as if any 
inferior sort of worship was permitted to be paid 
to creatures ; but simply, plainly, and briefly, 
"Worship God." 

From the known and avowed religious senti- 
ments, then, of the apostles, both as Jews and as 
Christians, as well as from their practice, it 
follows that they could not pay religious worship 
to Christ, a fact which has already been esta- 
blished, except they had considered him as a 
Divine person, and themselves as bound, on that 
account, according to his own words, to honor the 
Son, even as they honored the Father. 

The Arians, it is true, as hinted above, devised 
the doctrine of supreme and inferior worship ; 
and a similar distinction was maintained by Dr. 
Samuel Clarke, to reconcile the worship of 
Christ with his semi-Arianism. The same sophist 



ical distinctions are resorted to by Roman Catho- 
lics to vindicate the worship of angels, the Virgin 
Mary, and departed saints. This distinction they 
express by larpeia and dovleia. St. Paul, how- 
ever, and other sacred writers, and the early 
fathers, certainly use these terms promiscuously 
and indifferently, so that the argument which is 
founded upon them, in defence of this inferior 
and subordinate worship, falls to the ground; 
and, as to all these distinctions of worship into 
ultimate or supreme, mediate or inferior, Dr. 
Waterland has most forcibly observed : — 

1. "I can meet with nothing in Scripture to 
countenance those finespun notions. Prayer we 
often read of ; but there is not a syllable about 
absolute and relative, supreme and inferior 
prayer. We are commanded to pray fervently 
and incessantly ; but never sovereignly or abso- 
lutely, that I know of. We have no rules left us 
about raising or lowering our intentions, in pro- 
portion to the dignity of the objects. Some in- 
structions to this purpose might have been highly 
useful ; and it is very strange that, in a matter 
of so great importance, no directions should be 
given, either in Scripture, or, at least, in 
antiquity, how to regulate our intentions and 
meanings, with metaphysical exactness ; so as to 
make our worship either high, higher, or highest 
of all, as occasion should require. 

2. "But a greater objection against this doc- 
trine is, that the whole tenor of Scripture runs 
counter to it. This may be understood, in part, 
from what I have observed above. To make it 
yet plainer, I shall take into consideration such 
acts and instances of worship as I find laid down 
in Scripture, whether under the old or new 
dispensation. 

"Sacrifice was one instance of worship required 
under the law ; and it is said, 'He that sacrificeth 
unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall 
be utterly destroyed.' Exod. xxii. 20. Now sup- 
pose any person, considering with himself that 
only absolute and sovereign sacrifice was appro- 
priated to God, by this law, should have gone 
and sacrificed to other gods, and have been con- 
victed of it before the judges: the apology he 
must have made for it, I suppose, must have run 
thus : ' Gentlemen, though I have sacrificed to 
other gods, yet, I hope, you'll observe, that I did 
it not absolutely : I meant not any absolute or 
supreme sacrifice, (which is all that the law 
forbids, ) but relative and inferior only. I regu- 
lated my intentions with all imaginable care, and 
my esteem with the most critical exactness : I 
considered the other gods, whom I sacrificed to, 
as inferior only, and infinitely so : reserving all 
sovereign sacrifice to the supreme God of Israel.' 
This, or the like apology, must, I presume, have 



CH. XV.] 

brought off the criminal, with some applause for 
his acuteness, if your principles be true. Either 
you must allow this, or you must be content to 
say that not only absolute supreme sacrifice, (if 
there be any sense in that phrase,) but all sacri- 
fice, was, by the law, appropriated to God 
only. 

"Another instance of worship is, making of 
vows — religious vows. We find as little appear- 
ance of your famed distinction here as in the 
former case. We read nothing of sovereign and 
inferior, absolute and relative vows: that we 
should imagine supreme vows to be appropriate 
to God — inferior permitted to angels or idols, or 
to any creature. 

"Swearing is another instance, much of the 
same kind with the foregoing. Swearing by 
God's name is a plain thing, and well understood ; 
but if you tell us of sovereign and inferior 
swearing, according to the inward respect or in- 
tention you have, in proportion to the dignity of 
the person by whose name you swear, it must 
sound perfectly new to us. All swearing which 
comes short in its respects, or falls below sove- 
reign, will, I am afraid, be little better than pro- 
faneness. 

"Such being the case in respect of the acts of 
religious worship already mentioned, I am now 
to ask you, what is there so peculiar in the case 
of invocation and adoration, that they should not 
be thought of the same kind with the other? 
Why should not absolute and relative prayer and 
prostration appear as absurd as absolute and 
relative sacrifice, vows, oaths, or the like ? They 
are acts and instances of religious worship, like 
the other: appropriated to God in the same 
manner, and by the same laws, and upon the 
same grounds and reasons. Well then, will you 
please to consider whether you have not begun 
at the wrong end, and committed an varepov 
irporepov in your way of thinking ? You imagine 
that acts of religious worship are to derive their 
signification and quality from the intention and 
meaning of the worshippers, whereas the very 
reverse of it is the truth. Their meaning and 
signification is fixed and determined by God him- 
self; and therefore wo are never to use them 
with any other meaning, under peril of profane- 
ness or idolatry. God has not left us at liberty 
to fix what sense we please upon religious wor- 
ship : to render it high or low, absolute or rela- 
tive, at discretion: supreme when offered to God, 
and if to Others inferior, as when to angels, or 
Baints, or images, in suitable proportion. No: 
religion was not made for metaphysical heads 

only, such as might nicely distinguish the several 

degrees ami elevations of respeol and honor 
among many objects. The short and plain way 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



143 



which (in pity to human infirmity, and to prevent 
confusion) it has pleased God to take with us, is 
to make all religious worship his own ; and so it 
is sovereign, of course. This I take to be the 
true scriptural, as well as only reasonable account 
of the object of worship. We need not concern 
ourselves (it is but vain to pretend to it) about 
determining the sense and meaning of religious 
worship. God himself has taken care of it, and 
it is already fixed and determined to our hands. 
It means, whether we will or no, it means, by 
Divine institution and appointment, the divinity, 
the supremacy, the sovereignty of its object. To 
misapply those marks of dignity, those appro- 
priate ensigns of Divine majesty: to compliment 
any creature with them, and thereby to make 
common what God has made proper, is to deify 
the works of God's hands, and to serve the crea- 
ture instead of the Creator, God blessed for ever. 
We have no occasion to talk of sovereign, abso- 
lute prayers, and such other odd fancies : prayer 
is an address to God, and does not admit of those 
novel distinctions. In short, then, here is no 
room left for your distinguishing between sove- 
reign and inferior adoration. You must first 
prove what you have hitherto presumed only, 
and taken for granted, that you are at liberty to 
fix what meaning and signification you please to 
the acts of religious worship : to make them 
high or low at discretion. This you will find a 
very difficult undertaking. Scripture is before- 
hand with you ; and, to fix it more, the concur- 
ring judgment of the earliest and best Christian 
writers. All religious worship is hereby deter- 
mined to be what you call absolute and sovereign. 
Inferior or relative worship appears now to be 
contradiction in sense, as it is novel in sound : 
like an inferior or relative god." — Defence of 
Queries. 

These absurdities have at length been disco- 
vered by Socinians themselves, who, notwith- 
standing the authority of Socinus, have at length 
become, in this respect, consistent ; and, as they 
deny the Divinity of our Lord, so they refuse 
him worship, and do not "honor the Son as they 
honor the Father." Their refusal to do so must 
be left to Him who hath said, "Kiss the Son, lest 
he bo angry, and ye perish from the way;" but 
though they have not shunned error, they have 
at least, by refusing all worship to Christ, 
escaped from hypocrisy. 

Numerous other passages in the New Testa- 
ment, in addition to those on which some remarks 
have been offered, might be adduced, in which 
the Divinity of our Lord is expressly taught, and 
which might be easily rescued from that discre- 
ditable and unsoholarly oritioism by which Sooi- 
niau writers have attempted io darken their 



344 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



evidence. It has, however, been my object 
rather to adduce passages which directly support 
the arguments in the order in which they have 
been adduced, than to collect those which are 
more insulated. All of them ought, however, to 
be consulted by the careful student ; and indeed, 
from many texts of this description, which 
appear to be but incidentally introduced, the 
evidence that the doctrine of the Godhead of 
Christ was taught by the apostles, is presented 
to us with this impressive circumstance : that 
the inspired writers of the New Testament all 
along assume it as a point which was never, in 
that age, questioned by true Christians. It in- 
fluenced, therefore, the turn of their language, 
and established a theological style among them, 
when speaking of Christ, which cannot possibly 
be reconciled to any hypothesis whioh excludes 
his essential Deity ; and which no honest or even 
rational men could have fallen into, unless they 
had acknowledged and worshipped their master 
as GOD. 

Out of this numerous class of passages, one 
will suffice for illustration. 

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in 
Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; but 
made himself of no reputation," etc. Philip, ii. 
5-7. Here the apostle is recommending an 
humble and benevolent disposition to the Philip- 
pians ; and he enforces it, not certainly by 
considerations which themselves needed to be 
established by proof, or in which the Philippians 
had not been previously instructed, but in the 
most natural manner, and that only which a good 
writer could adopt, by what was already esta- 
blished, and received as true among them. It 
was already admitted by the Philippians as an 
undoubted verity of the Christian religion, that 
before Christ appeared in "the form of a ser- 
vant," he existed "in the form of God;" and 
before he was "found in fashion as a man," he 
was such a being as could not think it "robbery 
to be equal with God." On these very grounds 
the example of Christ is proposed to his fol- 
lowers, and its imitation enforced upon them. 
This incidental and familiar manner of intro- 
ducing so great a subject, clearly shows that the 
Divinity of Christ was a received doctrine ; but, 
though introduced incidentally, the terms em- 
ployed by the apostle are as strong and une- 
quivocal as if he had undertaken formally to 
propose it. It is not necessary to show this by 
going through that formidable mass of verbal 
criticism which commentators, scholiasts, and 
other critics, have accumulated around this 
passage. Happily, as to this, as well as many 
other important texts which form the bases of 



the great dogmata of Christianity, much less is 
left to verbal criticism than many have supposed: 
the various clauses, together with the connec- 
tion, so illustrate and guard the meaning as to 
fix their sense, and make it obvious to the gene- 
ral reader. "Who being" or "subsisting in the 
form of God." This is the first character of 
Christ's exalted preexistent state ; and it is 
adduced as the ground of a claim which, for a 
season, he divested himself of, and became, 
therefore, an illustrious example of humility and 
charity. The greatness of Christ is first laid 
down; then what he renounced of that which 
was due to his greatness ; and finally, the condi- 
tion is introduced to which he stooped or humbled 
himself. "He thought it not robbery to be equal 
with God, but made himself of no reputation, 
and took upon him the form of a servant." 
These are, obviously, the three great points in 
this celebrated text, to the consideration of which 
we are strictly bound by the apostle's argument. 
Let each be briefly considered, and it will be 
seen how impossible it is to explain this passage 
in any way which does not imply our Lord's 
essential Divinity. To be or to subsist in "the 
form of God," is to be truly and essentially God. 
This may, indeed, be argued from the word 
fiopfyrj, though some have confined its meaning to 
external form or appearance. The Socinian expo- 
sition, that "the form of God" signifies his power 
of working miracles, needs no other refutation 
than that the apostle here speaks of what our 
Lord was before he took upon him the form of a 
servant, and was made in the likeness of men. 
The notion, too, of Whitby and others, who refer 
it to the visible glory of God, in which he 
appeared to the patriarchs, is also disproved by 
this manifest consideration, that the phrase 
"subsisting (virapx^v) in the form of God," 
describes the permanent preexistent state of 
Christ. He subsisted in the form of God, there- 
fore, from eternity, and consequently before he 
made any visibly glorious manifestations of him- 
self to the patriarchs; nor, as God is invisible 
and immaterial, and consequently has no likeness 
of figure, could our Lord, in their sense, "subsist" 
in the form or appearance of God. If, indeed, 
"form" means likeness, it must be intellectual 
likeness ; and, therefore, to subsist in the form 
of God is to be God, for he could not be the like- 
ness of God, or, as the apostle has it in the 
Hebrews, the "express image" or character of his 
person, without being God ; for how could he be 
expressly like, or expressly resemble, or have 
the appearance of omnipotence, if he were not 
himself almighty ? or of omniscience, if not 
himself all-knowing? Let us then allow that 
fiopcj)ij, in its leading sense, has the signification 



CH. XV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



345 



of form, shape, image, and similitude, 1 yet this 
can only be applied to the Divine Being figura- 
tively. He has no sensible form, no appearance; 
and nothing can be in this form or image, there- 
fore, but what has the same essential properties 
and perfections. "Sed'age," says Eisner, 
"largiamur Socinianis {zoptyrjv Qeov speciem et 
imaginem Dei esse, tamen valido inde argumento 
docebimus : Deum esse natura, qui in forma et 
imagine Dei existeret : nisi Deum personatum, et 
commentitium, qui speciem quidem et (pavraafia 
haberet veritate carens, credere et adorare 
malint." (Observationes Sacrce in loc.) But it is 
not true, as some have hastily stated, that /u.op<f>r) 
signifies only the outward form of any thing : it 
is used in Greek authors for the essential form 
or nature itself of a thing, of which examples 
may be seen in Wetstein, Eisner, Rosenmuller, 
Schleusner, and others; and accordingly Schleus- 
ner explains it " per metonymiam ; ipsa natura 
et essentia alicujus rei;" and adds, " sic legitur in 
N. T. Philip, ii. 6, ubi Christus dicitur kv fxop<py 
Qsov v-rrdpxov ad designandam sublimiorem ipsius 
naturam." The Greek fathers also understood 
fj,op<br) in the sense of ovoia ; and to use the phrase 
"being in the form of God," to signify the "being 
really and truly God." 

Thus, the term itself is sufficiently explicit of 
the doctrine ; but the context would decide the 
matter, were the verbal criticism less decidedly 
in favor of this interpretation. "The form of 
God" stands opposed to "the form of a servant." 
This, say those critics who would make the form 
of God an external appearance only, means "the 
appearance and behavior of a bondsman or slave, 
and not the essence of such a person." But 
dovloc, a slave, is not, in the New Testament, 
taken in the same opprobrious sense as among 
us. St. Paul calls himself "the slave of Jesus 
Christ," and our translators have, therefore, 
properly rendered the word by servant, as more 
exactly conveying the meaning intended. Now 
it is certain that Christ was the servant or 
minister both of the Father and of his creatures. 
He himself declares, that he came not "to be 
ministered unto, but to minister;" and as to bo 
in the form of a servant is not, therefore, to have 
the appearance of a servant, but to be really a 
servant, so to be in the form of God is to bo 
really God. This is rendered still stronger by 
the following clause, which is exegetic of the 
preceding, as will appear from the literal ren- 
dering, tho force of which is obscured by tho 
copulative introduced into the common version. 
It is not — "and took upon him the form of a 



1 "1- Forma, externua habitus, omne guod in oculos 
occurrit, imago, similitude)."— Schteltmer, 



servant, and was made in the likeness of men;" 
but "being made in the likeness of men," which 
clearly denotes that he took the form of a ser- 
vant by "being made in the likeness of men:" 
so that, as Bishop Pearson irresistibly argues, 

"The phrase 'in the form of God,' not else- 
where mentioned, is used by the apostle with 
respect unto that other, of 'the form of a ser- 
vant, exegetically continued 'in the likeness of 
men;' and the respect of one unto the other is 
so necessary, that if the form of God be not 
real and essential as the form of a servant, or 
the likeness of man, there is no force in the 
apostle's words, nor will his argument be fit to 
work any great degree of humiliation upon the 
consideration of Christ's exinanition. But by 
the form is certainly understood the true condi- 
tion of a servant, and by the likeness is infallibly 
meant the real nature of man: nor doth the fashion 
in which he was found destroy, but rather asserts 
the truth of his humanity. And, therefore, as 
sure as Christ was really and essentially man, 
of the same nature with us, in whose similitude 
he was made, so certainly was he also really 
and essentially God, of the same nature and 
being with him, in whose form he did subsist." 
(Discourses on the Creed.) 

The greatness of him who "humbled himself" 
being thus laid down by the apostle, he proceeds 
to state what, in the process of his humiliation, 
he waived of that which was due to his great- 
ness. He "thought it not robbery to be equal 
with God; but made himself of no reputation;" 
or, as many choose to render it, "he emptied 
himself." Whether the clause, "thought it not 
robbery," be translated "esteemed it not an 
object to be caught at, or eagerly desired, to be 
as God," or did not think it a "usurpation," or, 
as our translators have it, a "robbery" to be 
equal with God, signifies little ; for, after all the 
criticism expended on this unusual phrase, that 
Christ had a right to that which he might have 
retained, but chose to waive when he humbled 
himself, is sufficiently established both by the 
meaning of the word and by the connection 
itself. Some Socinians allow the common trans- 
lation, and their own version is to tho same 
effect — he "did not esteem it a, prey;" which can 
only mean, though they attempt to cloud tho 
matter in their note, that he did not esteem that 
as his own property to which ho had no right. - 
That, then, which he did not account a "prey** 
a seizure of another's right or property, was "to 
bo equal with Goo." Whether, in the phrase 



2 "Kon rapt nam, suit Bpolium ftlicul, detractum, (itt.rit." 

(BosemmuOer.) So the ancient versions. •-Non rapinam 
arbitratuB est,'f (VufyaU.) "Non rapinam hoe existiniaTtt." 

(Syriac.) 



346 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



to elva lea Qeu, to be equal with God, Isc is to be 
taken adverbially, and translated as. like as, God : 
or. by enallage, for the singular adjective mas- 
culine, and to be rendered equal to God, has been 
matter of dispute. The grammatical authority 
appears to predominate in favor of the latter, 1 
and it is supported by several of the fathers and 
the ancient versions : but here, again, we are not 
left to the niceties of verbal criticism. If taken 
in either way, the sense is much the same: he 
thought it not a robbery, or usurpation, to be 
equal with God, or, as God, which, as the sense 
determines, was an equality of honor and dig- 
nity: but made himself of no reputation. For. 
as the phrase, the form of G</d, signifies Lis 
essential Divinity, so that of which he "erra:.: . ' 
or divested himself for the time was something ' 
to which he had a right consequent upon his 
Divinity ; and if to be equal with God, or to be \ 
as God, was his right as a Divine person, it was 
not any thing which he was essentially of which 
he divested himself, for that were impossible : 
but something which, if he had not been God, it 
would have been a robbery and usurpation either 

urn or retain. This, then, can be nothing ! 
else than the assumption of a Divine maj ssty : ] 
glory, the proclamation of his own rights, and 
the demand of his creatures' praise and homage 
— the laying aside of which, indeed, is admirably f 
expressed in our translation, "but made himself J 
vf ::■ reputation!"' This is also established by 
the antithesis in the text. " The form of a ser- 
vant" stands opposed to the "form of God"' — a 
real servant to real Divinity; and to be "equal" 
with God, or, as God, in glory, honor, and horn- ; 
age, is contrasted with the humiliations of a 
human state. "In that state he was made flesh, \ 
sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, subject to the 
infirmities and miseries of this life : in that state 
he was "'made of a woman, made under the law, ? 
and so obliged to fulfil the same : in that state 
he was born, and hived to manhood in a mean 
condition: was -despised and rejected of men, a 
man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:' in 
that state, being thus made man. he took upon 
him 'the form of a servant.' If any man doubt 
how Christ emptied himself, the text will satisfy 
him — 'by taking the form of a servant:' if any 
still question how he took the form of a servant, 
he hath the apostle's solution — 'by being made 
in the likeness of men.' And being found in 
fashion as a man : being already, by his exinani- 
tion, in the form of a servant, he humbled him- 
self, becoming 'obedient unto death, even the 
death of the cross. '" L i : :? Peap.sox.) The first 
stage of his humiliation was his assuming "the 

Pearson on the Creed. Art. 2, note; Schlensner, 
Kraamus, and Schmidt. 



[part II. 

form of a servant" — the completion of it, his 
"obedience unto death." But what say the 
Socinians ? As with them to be in the form of 
God means to be invested with miraculous powers, 
so, to empty or divest himself was his not exert- 
ing those powers in order to prevent his cruci- 
fixion. The truth, however, is, that he "emptied" 
himself, not at his crucifixion, but when he took 
upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
in the likeness of men : so that, if to divest or 
empty himself be explained of laying down his 
miraculous gifts, he laid them down before he 
became man; that is, according to them, before 
he had any existence. There is no altera 
in this and many similai passages, between or- 
thodoxy and the most glaring critical absurdity. 



CHAPTEE XTI. 

HT^EASTTY OP CHRIST HYPOSTATIC TXIOX ER- 

E0K3 AS TO THE FKBSOH OF CHRIST. 

I>~ the present day, the controversy as to the 
person of Christ is almost wholly confined to the 
question of his Divinity ; but, in the early ages 
of the Church, it was necessary to establish his 
proper humanity. The denial of this appe: 
have existed as early as the time of St. John, 
who, in his epistles, excludes from the pale of 
the Church all who denied that Christ was come 
in the exesh. As his Gospel, therefore, pro- 
claims the Godhead, so his epistles defend also 
the doctrine of his humanity. 

The source of this ancient error appears be 
have been a philosophical one. Both in the 
oriental and Greek schools it was a favorite 
notion, that whatever was joined to matt: 
necessarily contaminated by it, and that the 
highest perfection of this life was abstraction 
from material things, and in another, a total and 
final separation from the body. This opinion 
was, also, the probable cause of leading some 
persons, in St. Paul's time, to deny the reality 
of a resurrection, and to explain it figura:: 
But, however that may be. it was one of the 
chief grounds of the rejection of the proper 
humanity of Christ among the different branches 
of the Gnostics, who, indeed, erred as to both 
natures. The things which the Scriptures attri- 
bute to the human nature of our Lord they did 
not deny ; but affirmed that they took place in 
appearance only, and they were, therefore, called 
x and Phantasiastce. At a later period, 
Eutyches fell into a similar error, by teaching 
that the human nature of Christ was absorbed 
into the Divine, and that his body had no real 



CH. XVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



347 



existence. These errors have passed away, and 
danger now lies only on one side: not, indeed, 
because men have become less liable or less dis- 
posed to err, but because philosophy — from vain 
pretences to which, or a proud reliance upon it, 
almost all great religious errors spring — has, in 
later ages, taken a different character. 

While these errors denied the real existence 
of the body of Christ, the Apollinarian heresy 
rejected the existence of a human soul in our 
Lord, and taught that the Godhead supplied its 
place. Thus, both these views denied to Christ 
a proper humanity, and both were, accordingly, 
condemned by the general Church. 

Among those who held the union of two 
natures in Christ, the Divine and human, which 
in theological language is called the hypostati- 
cal or personal union, several distinctions were 
also made, which led to a diversity of opinion. 
The Nestorians acknowledged two persons in our 
Lord, mystically and more closely united than 
any human analogy can explain. The Monophy- 
sites contended for one person and one nature — 
the two being supposed to be, in some myste- 
rious manner, confounded. The Monothelites 
acknowledged two natures and one will. Various 
other refinements were, at different times, pro- 
pagated ; but the true sense of Scripture appears 
to have been very accurately expressed by the 
council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century — that 
in Christ there is one person; in the unity of per- 
son, two natures, the Divine and the human ; and 
that there is no change, or mixture, or confusion 
of these two natures, but that each retains its 
own distinguishing properties. With this agrees 
the Athanasian Creed, whatever be its date, — 
" Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable 
soul, and human flesh subsisting — Who although 
he be God and man, yet he is not two ; but one 
Christ: one, not by conversion of the Godhead 
into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God ; 
one altogether, not by confusion of substance, 
but by unity of person ; for as the reasonable 
soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one 
Christ." The Church of England, by adopting 
this creed, has adopted its doctrine on the hypos- 
tatical union, and has further professed it in her 
second article. " The Son, which is the Word of 
the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Fa- 
ther, the very and eternal God, of one substance 
with the Father, took man's nature in the womb 
of the blessed virgin of her substance; so that 
the two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, 
the Godhead :uul manhood, were joined together 
in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one 
Christ, very God ami very man." 

Whatever objections may he raised against 

these news by the mere reason of man, unable 



to comprehend mysteries so high, but often bold 
enough to impugn them, they certainly exhibit 
the doctrine of the New Testament on these im- 
portant subjects, though expressed in different 
terms. Nor are these formularies to be charged 
with originating such distinctions, and adding 
them to the simplicity of Scripture, as they often 
unjustly are by those who, either from lurking 
errors in their own minds, or from a vain affecta- 
tion of being independent of human authority, 
are most prone to question them. Such exposi- 
tions of faith were rendered necessary by the 
dangerous speculations and human refinements 
to which we have above adverted ; and were in- 
tended to be (what they may be easily proved 
from Scripture to be in reality) summaries of in- 
spired doctrines; not new distinctions, but de- 
clarations of what had been before taught by the 
Holy Spirit on the subject of the hypostatical 
union of natures in Christ ; and the accordance 
of these admirable summaries with the Scrip- 
tures themselves will be very obvious to all who 
yield to their plain and unperverted testimony. 
That Christ is very God, has been already proved 
from the Scriptures, at considerable length ; that 
he was truly a man, no one will be found to 
doubt ; that he is but one person, is sufficiently 
clear from this, that no distinction into two was 
ever made by himself, or by his apostles, and 
from actions peculiar to Godhead being sometimes 
ascribed to him under his human appellations ; 
and actions and sufferings peculiar to humanity 
being also predicated of him under Divine titles. 
That in him there is no confusion of the two na- 
tures, is evident from the absolute manner in 
which both his natures are constantly spoken of 
in the Scriptures. His Godhead was not deteri- 
orated by uniting itself with a human body, for 
" he is the true God :" his humanity was not, while 
on earth, exalted into properties which made it 
different in kind to the humanity of his crea- 
tures; for, "as the children are partakers of 
flesh and blood, he also took part of the same." 
If the Divine nature in him had been imperfect, 
it would have lost its essential character, for it is 
essential to Deity to be perfect and complete : if 
any of the essential properties of human nature 
had been wanting, he would not have been man: 
if, as some of the preceding notions implied. 
Divine and human had been mixed and eon- 
founded in him, he would have been a compounded 
being, neither God nor man. Nothing was defi- 
cient in his humanity, nothing in his Divinity, 
and yet lie is one Christ. This is clearly the doe- 
trine of the Scripture, and it is admirably ex- 
pressed in tho creeds above quoted ; and. on that 
account, they are entitled to great respect They 

embody the sentiments (A' some of the greatest 



348 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



men that ever lived in the Church, in language 
weighed with the utmost care and accuracy ; and 
they are venerable records of the faith of distant 
ages. 

These two circumstances, the completeness of 
each nature, and the union of both in one person, 
is the only key to the language of the New Tes- 
tament, and so entirely explains and harmonizes 
the whole as to afford the strongest proof, nest 
to its explicit verbal statements, of the doctrine 
that our Lord is at once truly God and truly man. 
On the other hand, the impracticability of giving 
a consistent explanation of the testimony of God 
" concerning his Son Jesus Christ" on all other 
hypotheses, entirely confutes them. In one of 
two ways only will it be found, by every one who 
makes the trial honestly, that all the passages 
of holy writ respecting the person of Christ can 
be explained : either by referring them, accord- 
ing to the rule of the ancient fathers, to the 
Qeoloyia, by which they meant every thing that 
related to the Divinity of our Saviour ; or to the 
O'cKovo/Ltia, by which they meant his incarnation, 
and every thing that he did in the flesh to pro- 
cure the salvation of mankind. This distinction 
is expressed in modern theological language by 
considering some things which are spoken of 
Christ as said of his Divine, others of his human 
nature ; and he who takes this principle of inter- 
pretation along with him will seldom find any 
difficulty in apprehending the sense of the sacred 
writers, though the subjects themselves be often, 
to human minds, inscrutable. 

Does any one ask, for instance, if Jesus Christ 
was truly God, how he could be born and die ? 
how he could grow in wisdom and stature ? how 
he could be subject to law? be tempted? stand 
in need of prayer? how his soul could be "ex- 
ceeding sorrowful, even unto death ?" be "for- 
saken of his Father ?" purchase the Church with 
"his own blood?" have "a joy set before him?" 
be exalted? have "all power in heaven and 
earth" given to him ? etc. The answer is, that he 
was also man. 

If, on the other hand, it be a matter of sur- 
prise that a visible man should heal diseases at 
his will, and without referring to any higher au- 
thority, as he often did : still the winds and the 
waves : know the thoughts of men's hearts : fore- 
see his own passion in all its circumstances : au- 
thoritatively forgive sins : be exalted to absolute 
dominion over every creature in heaven and 
earth : be present wherever two or three are 
gathered in his name : be with his disciples to 
the end of the world : claim universal homage 
and the bowing of the knee of all creatures to 
his name : be associated with the Father in solemn 
ascriptions of glory and thanksgiving, and bear 



even the awful names of God, names of descrip- 
tion and revelation, names which express Divine 
attributes : — what is the answer? Can the Soci- 
nian scheme, which allows him to be a man only, 
produce a reply? Can it furnish a reasonable 
interpretation of texts of sacred writ which affirm 
all these things ? Can it suggest any solution 
which does not imply that the sacred penmen 
were not only careless writers, but writers who, 
if they had studied to be misunderstood, could 
not more delusively have expressed themselves ? 
The only hypothesis, explanatory of all these 
statements, is, that Christ is God as well as man, 
and by this the consistency of the sacred writers 
is brought out, and a harmonizing strain of sen- 
timent is seen compacting the Scriptures into one 
agreeing and mutually adjusted revelation. 

But the union of the two natures in Christ in 
one hypostasis, or person, is equally essential to 
the full exposition of the Scriptures, as the ex- 
istence of two distinctively, the Divine and the 
human ; and without it many passages lose all 
force, because they lose all meaning. In what 
possible sense could it be said of the Word that 
" he was made (or became) flesh," if no such 
personal unity existed? The Socinians them- 
selves seem to acknowledge the force of this, and 
therefore translate "and the Word was flesh," 
affirming falsely, as various critics have abund- 
antly shown, that the most usual meaning of 
ytvofiaL is to be. Without the hypostatical union, 
how could the argument of our Lord be sup- 
ported, that the Messiah is both David's Son and 
David's Loud ? If this is asserted of two per- 
sons, then the argument is gone ; if of one, then 
two natures, one which had authority as Lord, 
and the other capable of natural descent, were 
united in one person. Allowing that we have 
established it that the appellative "Son of God" 
is the designation of a Divine relation, but for 
this personal union the visible Christ could not 
be, according to St. Peter's confession, " the Son 
of the living God." By this doctrine we also 
learn how it was that "the Church of God" was 
"purchased by his own blood." Even if we 
concede the genuine reading to be "the Lord," 
this concession yields nothing to the Socinians, 
unless the term Lobd were a human title, which 
has been already disproved, and unless a mere 
man could be "Lobd both of the dead and the 
living," could wield universal sovereignty, and be 
entitled to universal homage. If, then, the title 
"the Lobd" be an appellation of Christ's supe- 
rior nature, in no other sense could it be said 
that the Church was purchased by his own blood, 
than by supposing the existence of that union 
which we call personal — a union which alone dis- 
tinguishes the sufferings of Christ from those of 



CH. XVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



349 



his martyred followers, gave to them a merit 
which theirs had not, and made "his Mood" 
capable of purchasing the salvation of the 
"Church." For, disallow that union, and we 
can see no possible meaning in calling the blood 
of Christ "the blood of God," or, if it please 
better, " of the Lord ;" or in what that great pe- 
culiarity consisted which made it capable of pur- 
chasing or redeeming. 

Dr. Pye Smith, in his very able work on the 
person of Christ, has rather inconsiderately 
blamed the orthodox, for "the very serious of- 
fence of sometimes using language which ap- 
plies to the Divine nature the circumstances and 
properties which could only attach to his human- 
ity," as giving unhappy occasion to the objections 
and derisions of their opponents. As he gives 
no instances, he had his eye, probably, upon some 
extreme cases ; but if he meant it as a remark 
of general application, it seems to have arisen 
from a very mistaken view, and assumes that 
the objections of opponents lie rather against 
terms than against the doctrine of Christ's Di- 
vinity itself. 

This is so far from being the case, that, if the 
orthodox were to attend to the caution given by 
this writer on this subject, they would not ap- 
proach one step nearer to the conversion of those 
who are in this fundamental error, supporting it, 
as they do, by perversions so manifest, and by 
criticisms so shameless. I am no apologist, how- 
ever, of real " errors and faults" in theological 
language; but the practice referred to, so far 
from being " a serious offence," has the authority 
of the writers of the New Testament. Argu- 
mentalivelg, the distinction between the Divine 
and human natures, according to the rule before 
given, must be maintained ; but when speaking 
cursorily, and on the assumption of the unques- 
tionable truth of the hypostatic union of the 
Divine and human natures — a manner of speak- 
ing which, it is hoped, all true Christians adopt, 
as arising from their settled convictions on this 
point — those very terms, so common among the 
orthodox, and so objectionable to those who 
" deny the Lord that bought them," must be main- 
tained in spite of "derision," or the language of 
the New Testament must be dropped, or at least 
be made very select, if this dangerous, and, in 
the result, this betraying courtesy be adopted. 
For what does Dr. P. Smith gain, when caution- 
ing tho believer against the use of the plmiso 
" the blood of Cod," by reminding him that there 
is reason fco prefer the reading, "the Church of 
the Lord, which he hath purchased by his oivn 
blood?" The orthodos contend that the appella- 
tion "Tin; Lord," when applied to our Saviour, 
is his title as Con; and the heterodox know, also, 



that the "blood of the Lord" is a phrase with us 
entirely equivalent to " the blood of God." They 
know, too, that we neither believe that "God" 
nor "the Lord" could die; but in using the 
established phrase, the all-important doctrine of 
the existence of such a union between the two 
natures of our Lord as to make the blood which 
he shed more than the blood of a mere man, more 
than the blood of his mere humanity itself, is 
maintained and exhibited ; and while we allow 
that God could not die, yet that there is a most 
important sense in which the blood of Christ was 
"the blood of God." 

We do not attempt to explain this mystery, but 
we find it on record ; and, in point of fact, that 
careful appropriation of the properties of the 
two natures to each respectively, which Dr. Pye 
Smith recommends, is not very frequent in the 
New Testament, and for this obvious reason, that 
the question of our Lord's Divinity is more gene- 
rally introduced as an undisputed principle than 
argued upon. It is true that the Apostle Paul 
lays it down that our Lord was of the seed of 
David, "according to the flesh," and "the Son of 
God, according to the Spirit of holiness." Here 
is an instance of the distinction; but generally 
this is not observed by the apostles, because the 
equally fundamental doctrine was always present 
to them, that the same person who was flesh 
was also truly God. Hence they scruple not to 
say that "the Lord of glory was crucified," that 
" the Prince of life was killed," and that he who 
was "in the form of God," became "obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross." 

We return from this digression to notice a few 
other passages, the meaning of which can only 
be opened by the doctrine of the personal union 
of the Divine and human natures in Christ. 
" Fo'r in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God- 
head bodily," (Col. ii. 9;) not by a type and 
figure, but, as the word cofiaTinCJc signifies, really 
and substantially, and, for the full exposition, we 
must add, by personal union; for we have no 
other idea by which to explain an expression 
never used to signify the inhabitation of good 
men by God, and which is here applied to Christ 
in a way of eminence and peculiarity. 1 

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and 
the express image of his person, and upholding 
all things by tho word of his power, when he had 
by himself purged our sins, sat down on tho 
right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb. i. 3. 
To this passage, also, the hypostatical union i-; 
the only key. Of whom does the apostle speak, 

i "'Eu/u.aTisux; h. e. vera, perfe&tissime, dod typioe, at 
Umbraliter, Bicut in V. T. Pons so ni!Uiir.-ta\ it. K-t ;uitom 

Inhabitatlo QUI el onto personalis, el Blngularisaimft."— 

Ulassius. 



350 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



-when he says, " when he had by himself purged 
our sins," but of Him who is " the brightness of 
his glory, and the express image of his person?" 
He, by himself, " purged our sins ;" yet this was 
done by the shedding of his blood. In that higher 
nature, however, he could not suffer death ; and 
nothing could make the sufferings of his human- 
ity a purification of sins by himself, but such a 
union as should constitute one person ; for, un- 
less this be allowed, either the characters of 
Divinity in the preceding verses are characters 
of a merely human being; or else that higher 
nature was capable of suffering death ; or, if not, 
the purification was not made by himself, which 
yet the text affirms. 

In fine, all passages which (not to mention 
many others) come under the following classes 
have their true interpretation thus laid open, and 
are generally utterly unmeaning on any other 
hypothesis. 

1. Those which, like some of the foregoing, 
speak of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ 
for the remission of sins. In this class the two 
following maybe given as examples. Heb. ii. 14: 
"Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers 
of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took 
part of the same ; that through death he might 
destroy him that had the power of death," etc. 
Here the efficacy of the death of Christ is ex- 
plicitly stated ; but as explicitly is it said to be 
the death of one who partook of flesh and blood, 
or who assumed human nature. The power of 
deliverance is ascribed to him who thus invested 
himself with a nature below that of his own 
original nature; but in that lower nature he 
dies, and by that death he delivers those who 
had been all their lifetime subject to bondage. 
The second is Colossians i. 14, etc. : "In whom 
we have redemption through his blood, even the 
forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the in- 
visible God," etc. In this passage, the lofty de- 
scription which is given of the person of Christ 
stands in immediate connection with the mention 
of the efficacy of "his blood," and is to be con- 
sidered as the reason why, through that blood, 
redemption and remission of sins became at- 
tainable. Thus, "without shedding of blood 
is no remission;" but the blood of Jesus only 
is thus efficacious, who is "the image of the 
invisible God," the "Creator" of all things. His 
blood it could not be but for the hypostatical 
union ; and it is equally true, that but for that he 
could have had no blood to shed ; because, as ' ' the 
image of the invisible God," that is, God's equal, 
or God himself, his nature was incapable of 
death. 

2. In the second class are all those passages 
which argue from the compassion which our Lord 



[PART ii. 



manifested in his humiliation, and his own ex- 
perience of sufferings, to the exercise of confi- 
dence in him by his people in dangers and afflict- 
ive circumstances. Of these the following may 
I be given for the sake of illustration. Heb. iv. 
15, 16: "For we have not a high priest which 
j cannot be touched with the feeling of our in- 
firmities ; but was in all points tempted like as 
, we are, yet without sin. Let us, therefore, come 
j boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may ob- 
I tain mercy, and find grace to help in time of I 
I need." Several similar passages occur in the 
early part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the 
argument of them all is precisely the same. The 
I humiliation of our Lord, and his acquaintance 
with human woes, may assure us of his sympa- 
, thy; but sympathy is not help. He is repre- 
, sented, therefore, as the source of "succor," as 
the "Author of salvation" "the Captain of their 
salvation" in consequence of the sufferings he 
endured ; and to him all his people are directed 
to fly for aid in prayer, and, by entire trust in his 
power, grace, and presence, to assure themselves 
that timely succor and final salvation shall be be- 
stowed upon them by him. Now here, also, it is 
clear that the sufferer and the Saviour are the 
same person. The man might suffer; but suffer- 
ings could not enable the man to save : they could 
give no new qualification to human nature, nor 
bestow upon that nature any new right. But, 
beside the nature which suffered, and learned the 
bitterness of human woes by experience, there is 
a nature which can know the sufferings of all 
others, in all places, at all times ; which can also 
ascertain the " time of need" with exactness, and 
the "grace" suitable to it; which can effectually 
"help" and sustain the sorrows of the very h ear t, 
a power peculiar to Divinity, and finally bestow 
" eternal salvation." This must be Divine ; but 
it is one in personal union with that which suf- 
fered and was taught sympathy, and it is this 
union constitutes that " Great High Priest" of 
our profession, that "merciful and faithful High 
Priest," who is able "to succor us when we are 
tempted." Thus, as it has been well observed 
on this subject, "It is by the union of two na- 
tures in one person that Christ is qualified to be 
the Saviour of the world. He became man that, 
with the greatest possible advantage to those 
whom he was sent to instruct, he might teach 
them the nature and the will of God ; that his 
life might be their example ; that, by being once 
compassed with the infirmities of human nature, 
he might give them assurance of his fellow-feel- 
ing ; that by suffering on the cross he might 
make atonement for their sins ; and that in his 
reward they might behold the earnest and the 
pattern of theirs. 



CH. XVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



351 



"But had Jesus been only man, or had he 
been one of the spirits that surround the throne 
of God, he could not have accomplished the work 
which he undertook ; for the whole obedience of 
every creature being due to the Creator, no part 
of that obedience can be placed to the account 
of other creatures, so as to supply the defects of 
their service, or to rescue them from the punish- 
ment which they deserve. The Scriptures, there- 
fore, reveal, that he who appeared upon earth as 
man, is also God, and, as God, was mighty to 
save ; and by this revelation they teach us that 
the merit of our Lord's obedience, and the effi- 
cacy of his interposition, depend upon the hy- 
postatical union. 

"All modern sects of Christians agree in ad- 
mitting that the greatest benefits arise to us from 
the Saviour of the world being man ; but the 
Arians and Socinians contend earnestly that his 
sufferings do not derive any value from his being 
God ; and their reasoning is specious. You say, 
they argue, that Jesus Christ, who suffered for 
the sins of men, is both God and man. You must 
either say that God suffered, or that he did not 
suffer : if you say that God suffered, you do, in- 
deed, affix an infinite value to the sufferings ; 
but you affirm that the Godhead is capable of 
suffering, which is both impious and absurd : if 
you say that God did not suffer, then, although 
the person that suffered had both a Divine and a 
human nature, the sufferings were merely those 
of a man, for, according to your own system, the 
two natures are distinct, and the Divine is im- 
passible. 

" In answer to this method of arguing, we may 
admit that the Godhead cannot suffer, and we do 
not pretend to explain the kind of support which 
the human nature derived, under its sufferings, 
from the Divine, or the manner in which the two 
were united. But from the uniform language of 
Scripture, which magnifies the love of God in 
giving his only-begotten Son ; which speaks in 
the highest terms of the preciousness of the 
blood of Christ ; which represents him as coming, 
in the body that was prepared for him, to do that 
which sacrifice and burnt-offering could not do : 
from all this wo infer that there was a value, a 
merit, in tho sufferings of this person, superior 
to that which belonged to the sufferings of any 
other ; and as the same Sci-iptures intimato, in 
numberless places, the strictest union between 
the Divine and human nature of Christ, by ap- 
plying to him promiscuously the actions which 
belong bo each nature, we hold that it is impos- 
sible for us to separate in our imagination this 
peculiar value which they affix to liis sufferings 
from the peculiar dignity of his person. 

"Tho hypostatical union, then, is the corner- 



stone of our religion. "We are too much accus- 
tomed, in all our researches, to perceive that 
things are united, without our being able to 
investigate the bond which unites them, to feel 
any degree of surprise that we cannot answer all 
the questions which ingenious men have pro- 
posed upon this subject; but we can clearly dis- 
cern, in those purposes of the incarnation of the 
Son of God which the Scriptures declare, the 
reason why they have dwelt so largely upon his 
Divinity ; and if we are careful to take into our 
view the whole of that description which they 
give of the person by whom the remedy in the 
Gospel was brought : if, in our speculations con- 
cerning him, we neither lose sight of the two 
parts which are clearly revealed, nor forget, 
what we cannot comprehend, that union be- 
tween the two parts which is necessarily implied 
in the revelation of them, we shall perceive, in 
the character of the Messiah, a completeness and 
a suitableness to the design of his coming, which 
of themselves create a strong presumption that 
we have rightly interpreted the Scriptures/' — 
Dr. Hill. 

On this evidence from the Holy Scriptures the 
doctrine of the Divinity of our blessed Saviour 
rests. Into the a v ument from antiquity my 
limits will not allow me to enter. If the great 
"falling away," predicted by St. Paul, had 
involved, generally, this high doctrine ; if both 
the Latin and Greek Churches had wholly de- 
parted from the faith, instead of having united, 
without intermission, to say, "Thou art the 
King of glory, Christ," "Thou art the ever- 
lasting Son of the Father," the truth of God 
would not have been made of "none effect." 
God would still have been true, though every 
man, from the age of inspiration, had become "a 
liar." The Socinians have, of late years, shown 
great anxiety to obtain some suffrages from anti- 
quity in their favor, and have collected every 
instance possible of early departure from the 
faith. They might, indeed, have found heretical 
pravity and its adherents without travelling out 
of the New Testament : men not only near the 
apostolic age, but in the very days of tho 
apostles, who rejected the resurrection, who 
consented not "to wholesome doctrine," who 
made "shipwreck of faith," as well as of a good 
conscience, who denied "the only Lord God, and 
our Lord Jesus Christ," "tho Lord that bought 
thorn." This kind of antiquity is, in truth, 
in their favor; and, as human nature is sub- 
stantially the same in all ages, there is as much 
reason to expect errors in one age as another; 
but that any body of Christians, in any Bense 

entitled to be considered as an acknowledged 
branch of tho Church of Christ, can be found, 



352 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



in primitive times, to give any sanction to their 
opinions and interpretations of Scripture, they 
have failed to establish. For full information on 
the subject of the opinions of the primitive 
churches, and a full refutation of the pretences 
which Arians and Socinians, in these later times, 
have made to be, in part, supported by primi- 
tive authority, the works of Bishop Bull, Dr. 
"Waterland, and Bishop Horsley, 1 must be con- 
sulted; and the result will show, that in the 
interpretation of the Scriptures given above, 
we are supported by the successive and ac- 
cording testimonies of all that is truly authorita- 
tive in those illustrious ages which furnished so 
many imperishable writings for the edification 
of the future Church, and so many martyrs 
and confessors of the " truth as it is in Jesus." 

Among the numerous errors, with respect to 
the person of our Lord, which formerly sprang 
up in the Church, and were opposed, with an 
ever-watchful zeal, by its authorities, three 
only can be said to have much influence in the 
present day — Arianism, Sabellianism, and Soci- 
nianism. In our own country, the two former 
are almost entirely merged in the last, whose 
characteristic is the tenet of the simple humanity 
of Christ. Asms, who gave his name to the 
first, seems to have wrought some of the float- 
ing errors of previous times into a kind of 
system, which, however, underwent various 
modifications among his followers. The distin- 
guishing tenet of this system was, that Christ 
was the first and most exalted • of creatures : 
that he was produced in a peculiar manner, and 
endowed with great perfections : that by him 
God made the world : that he alone proceeded 
immediately from God, while other things were 
produced mediately by him, and that all things 
were put under his administration. The serni- 
Arians divided from the Arians, but still dif- 
fered from the orthodox, in refusing to admit 
that the Son was homoousios, or of the same sub- 
stance with the Father ; but acknowledged him 
to be komoiousios, of a like substance with the 
Father. It was only, however, in appearance 
that they came nearer to the truth than the 
Arians themselves, for they contended that this 
likeness to the Father in essence was not by 
nature, but by peculiar privilege. In their system, 
Christ, therefore, was but a creature. A still 
further refinement on this doctrine was, in this 
country, advocated by Dr. Samuel Clarke, which 
Dr. Waterland, his great and illustrious oppo- 
nent, showed, notwithstanding the orthodox 

1 See also Wilson's illustration of the Method of explain- 
ing the New Testament hy the early Opinions of Jews 
and Christians concerning Christ; and Dr. Jamieson's Vin- 
dication, etc. 



terms employed, still implied that Christ was a 
created being, unless an evident absurdity were 
admitted. 2 

The Sabellian doctrine stands equally opposed 
to trinitarianism and to the Arian system. It 
asserts the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit, 
against the latter, and denies the personality of 
both, in opposition to the former. Sabellius 
taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 
only denominations of one hypostasis ; in other 
words, that there is but one person in the God- 
head, and that the Son or Word are virtues, ema- 
nations, or functions only : that under the Old 
Testament God delivered the law as Father; 
under the New, dwelt among men, or was incar- 
nate, as the Son; and descended on the apos- 
tles as the Spirit. Because their scheme, by 
denying a real Sonship, obliged them to acknow- 
ledge that it was the Father who suffered for the 
sins of men, the Sabellians were often, in the 
early ages, called Patripassians. 

On the refutation of these errors it is not 
necessary to dwell, both because they have now 
little influence, and chiefly because both are 
involved in the Socinian question, and are de- 
cided by the establishment of the scriptural 
doctrine of a trinity of Divine persons in the 
unity of the Godhead. If Jesus Christ be the 
Divine Son of God; if he was "sent" from God, 
and "returned" to God; if he distinguished 
himself from the Father both in his Divine and 
human nature, saying, as to the former, "I and 
my Father are one," and as to the latter, "My 
Father is greater than I;" if there be any 
meaning at all in his declaration, " that no man 
knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth 
any man the Father save the Son" — words which 
cannot, by any possibility, be spoken of an 
official distinction, or of an emanation or opera- 
tion — then, all these passages prove a real per- 
sonality, and are incapable of being explained by 
a modal one. This is the answer to the Sabel- 
lian opinion ; and as to the Arian hypothesis, it 
falls, with Socinianism, before that series of 
proofs which has already been adduced from holy 
writ, to establish the eternity, consubstantiality, 
coequality, and, consequently, the proper Divi- 
nity of our Redeemer; and, perhaps, the true 



2 Dr. Samuel Clarke's hypothesis was, that there is one 
Supreme Being, who is the Father, and two subordinate, 
derived, and dependent beings. But he objected to call 
Christ a creature, thinking him something between a 
created and a self-existent nature. Dr. C. appealed to the 
fathers; and Petavius, a learned Jesuit, in his Dogmata 
Theologica, had previously endeavored to prove that the 
ante-Nicene fathers leaned to Arianism. Bishop Bull, in 
his great work on this subject, and Dr. Waterland, may be 
considered as having fully put that question to rest in op- 
position to both. 



CH. XVII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



353 



reason why not even the semi-Arianism, argued 
with so much subtilty by Dr. Samuel Clarke, 
has been able to retain any influence among us, 
is less to be attributed to the able and learned 
writings of Dr. Waterland and others, who 
chased the error through all its changeful trans- 
formations, than to the manifest impossibility 
of conceiving of a being which is neither truly 
God nor a creature ; and the total absence of all 
countenance in the Scriptures, however tortured, 
in favor of this opinion. Socinianism assumes a 
plausibility in some of its aspects, because Christ 
was really a man ; but semi-Arianism is a mere 
hypothesis, which can scarcely find a text of 
Scripture to pervert. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OP THE HOLY 
GHOST. 

The discussion of this great point of Chris- 
tian doctrine may be included in much narrower 
limits than those I have assigned to the Divinity 
of Christ, so many of the principles on which 
it rests having been closely considered, and 
because the Deity of the Spirit, in several in- 
stances, inevitably follows from that of the Son. 
As the object of this work is to educe the doc- 
trine of the Sacred Scriptures on all the leading 
articles of faith, it will, however, be necessary 
to show the evidence which is there given to 
the two propositions in the title of the chap- 
ter: — that the Holy Ghost (from the Saxon 
word Gast, a Spirit) is a person ; and that he 
is God. 

As to the manner of his being, the orthodox 
doctrine is, that as Christ is God by an eternal 
filiation, so the Spirit is God by procession from 
the Father and the Son. "And I believe in 
the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who 
proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who, 
with the Father and Son together, is worshipped 
and glorified." (Niccne Creed.) "The Holy 
Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither 
made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceed- 
ing.'''' (Alhanasian Creed.) "The Holy Ghost, 
proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of 
one substance, majesty, and glory with the 
Father and the Son, very and eternal God." 
[Articles of the English Church.) The Latin 
Church introduced tho term spiralion, from ,y>ir<>, 
to breathe, to denote tho manner of this proces- 
sion: on which Dr. Owen remarks, "As the vital 
breath of a man lias a continual emanation from 
him, and yet is never separated utterly from his 
28 



person, or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of 
the Father and the Son proceed from them by a 
continual Divine emanation, still abiding one 
with them." On this refined view little can be 
said which has obvious scriptural authority ; 
and yet the very term by which the third person 
in the trinity is designated wind or breath may, 
as to the third person, be designed, like the 
term Son applied to the second, to convey, 
though imperfectly, some intimation of that man- 
ner of being by which both are distinguished from 
each other, and from the Father ; and it was a 
remarkable action of our Lord, and one certainly 
which does not discountenance this idea, that 
when he imparted the Holy Ghost to his dis- 
ciples, "he breathed on them, and saith unto 
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." John xx. 
22.1 

But whatever we may think as to the doctrine 
of "spiration" the procession of the Holy Ghost 
rests on direct scriptural authority, and is thus 
stated by Bishop Pearson : — 

"Now this procession of the Spirit, in refer- 
ence to the Father, is delivered expressly, in 
relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in 
the Scriptures. First, it is expressly said that 
the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, as 
our Saviour testifieth, 'When the Comforter is 
come, whom I will send unto you from the 
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which pro- 
ceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.' 
John xv. 26. And this is also evident from what 
hath been already asserted ; for being the Father 
and the Spirit are the same God, and being so 
the same in the unity of the nature of God, are 
yet distinct in the personality, one of them must 
have the same nature from the other ; and 
because the Father hath been already shown to 
have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit 
hath it from him. 

"Secondly, though it be not expressly spoken 
in the Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceedeth 
from the Father and Son, yet the substance of 
the same truth is virtually contained there; 
because those very expressions which are spoken 
of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father, for 
that reason because he proceedeth from the 
Father, are also spoken of the same Spirit in 
relation to the Son; and, therefore, there must 
be the same reason presupposed in reference to 
the Son which is expressed in reference to the 



i "The Father hath relation to the Son. as the Father of 
die Son; the Son to the Father, as the Son of the Father; 
and the Holy Ghost being the spirit, or breath of the Father 
and the Son, to both." (Lawson's Tkto, i '.>/.) But though 
breath ox wind la the radical signification of 
also of spiritut, yet, probably from Its Bacredneaa, it la i>ut 
rarely used In thai sense In the Nen Testament. 



354 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



Father. Because the Spirit proceedeth. from the 
Father, therefore it is called the Spirit of God 
and the Spirit of the Father. ' It is not ye that 
speak, but the Spirit of your Father which 
speaketh in you.' Matt. x. 20. For, by the 
language of the apostle, the Spirit of God is the 
Spirit which is of God, saying, 'The things of 
God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 
And we have received not the spirit of the world, 
but the Spirit which is of God.' 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12. 
Now the same Spirit is also called the Spirit of 
the Son; for 'because we are sons, God hath 
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,' 
Gal. iv. 6: the Spirit of Christ — 'Now if any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of 
his,' Rom. viii. 9: 'even the Spirit of Christ 
which was in the prophets,' 1 Peter i. 11 : the 
Spirit of Jesus Christ, as the apostle speaks, ' I 
know that this shall turn to my salvation through 
your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of 
Jesus Christ.' Phil. i. 19. If, then, the Holy 
Ghost be called the Spirit of the Father, because 
he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that, 
being called also the Spirit of the Son, he pro- 
ceedeth also from the Son. 

"Again: because the Holy Ghost proceedeth 
from the Father, he is, therefore, sent by the 
Father, as from him who hath, by the original 
communication, a right of mission: as 'the 
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the 
Father will send.' John xiv. 26. But the same 
Spirit which is sent by the Father is also sent by 
the Son, as he saith, 'When the Comforter is 
come, whom I will send unto you.' Therefore 
the Son hath the same right of mission with the 
Father, and consequently must be acknowledged 
to have communicated the same essence. The 
Father is never sent by the Son, because he 
received not the Godhead from him ; but the 
Father sendeth the Son, because he communi- 
cated the Godhead to him : in the same manner, 
neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by 
the Holy Spirit ; because neither of them re- 
ceived the Divine nature from the Spirit ; but 
both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy 
Ghost, because the Divine nature, common to 
both the Father and the Son, was communicated 
by them both to the Holy Ghost. As, therefore, 
the Scriptures declare expressly that the Spirit 
proceedeth from the Father, so do they also 
virtually teach that he proceedeth from the Son." 
— Discourses on the Creed. 

In opposition to the doctrine of the personality 
and Deity of the Spirit, stands the Socinian hypo- 
thesis, which I state before the evidence from 
Scripture is adduced, that it may be seen, upon 
examination of inspired testimony, how far it is 
supported by that authority. Arius regarded 



the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created 
by Christ, ht'io/io. KTcaftaroc, the creature of a 
creature. Some time afterward, his personality 
was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was 
considered as the exerted energy of God. This 
appears to have been the notion of Socinus, and, 
with occasional modifications, has been adopted 
by his followers. They sometimes regard him as 
an attribute, and at others resolve the passages 
in which he is spoken of into a periphrasis, or 
circumlocution for God himself; or, to express 
both in one, into a figure of speech. 

In establishing the proper personality and 
Deity of the Holy Ghost, the first argument is 
drawn from the frequent association, in Scrip- 
ture, of a person, under that appellation, with 
two other persons, one of whom, "the Father ," 
is by all acknowledged to be Divine; and the 
ascription to each of them, or to the three in 
union, of the same acts, titles, and authority, 
with worship of the same kind, and, for any dis- 
tinction that is made, in an equal degree. This 
argument has already been applied to establish 
the Divinity of the Son, whose personality is not 
questioned ; and the terms of the proposition 
may be as satisfactorily established as to the 
Holy Spirit, and will prove at the same time both 
his personality and his Divinity. 

With respect to the Son, we have seen that, as 
so great and fundamental a doctrine as his Deity 
might naturally be expected to be announced in 
the Old Testament revelation, though its full 
manifestation should be reserved to the New, so 
it was, in fact, not faintly shadowed forth, but 
displayed with so much clearness as to become 
an article of faith in the Jewish Church. The 
manifestation of the existence and Divinity of 
the Holy Spirit may also be expected in the law 
and the prophets, and is, in fact, to be traced 
there with equal certainty. The Spirit is repre- 
sented as an agent in creation, "moving upon 
the face of the waters ;" and it forms no objec- 
tion to the argument, that creation is ascribed to 
the Father, and also to the Son, but a great con- 
firmation of it. That creation should be effected 
by all the three persons of the Godhead, though 
acting in different respects, yet so that each 
should be a Creator, and, therefore, both a 
person and a Divine person, can be explained 
only by their unity in one essence. On every 
other hypothesis this scriptural fact is disallowed, 
and, therefore, no other hypothesis can be true. 
If the Spirit of God be a mere influence, then he 
is not a Creator, distinct from the Father and 
the Son, because he is not a person ; but this is 
refuted both by the passage just quoted, and by 
Psalm xxxiii. 6, "By the Word of the Lord 
were the heavens made ; and all the host of them 



CH. XVII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



355 



by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of bis moutb." 
This is further confirmed by Job xxxiii. 4, "The 
Spirit of God bath made me, and the breath of 
the Almighty hath given me life:" where the 
second clause is obviously exegetic of the former, 
and the whole text proves that, in the patriarchal 
age, the followers of the true religion ascribed 
creation to the Spirit, as well as to the Father ; 
and that one of his appellations was "the Breath 
of the Almighty." Did such passages stand 
alone, there might, indeed, be some plausibility 
in the criticism which solves them by a personi- 
fication; but, connected as they are with that 
whole body of evidence which has been and shall 
be adduced, as to the concurring doctrine of both 
Testaments, they are inexpugnable. Again: if 
the personality of the Son and Spirit be allowed, 
and yet it is contended that they were but 
instruments in creation, through whom the crea- 
tive power of another operated, but which crea- 
tive power was not possessed by them ; on this 
hypothesis, too, neither the Spirit nor the Son 
can be said to create, any more than Moses created 
the serpent into which his rod was turned, and 
the Scriptures are again contradicted. To this 
association of the three persons in creative acts 
may be added a like association in acts of pre- 
servation, which has been well called a con- 
tinued creation, and by that term is expressed in 
the following passage, Psalm civ. 27-30 : " These 
wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them 
their meat in due season. Thou hidest thy face, 
they are troubled : thou takest away their breath, 
they die, and return to dust: thou sendest 
forth thy Spirit, they are created, and thou 
renewest the face of the earth." It is not surely 
here meant that the Spirit, by which the genera- 
tions of animals are perpetuated, is wind; and 
if he be called an attribute, wisdom, power, or 
both united, where do we read of such attributes 
being "sent," "sent forth from God?" The 
personality of the Spirit is here as clearly marked 
as when St. Paul speaks of God "sending forth 
the Spirit of his Son," and when our Lord pro- 
mises to "send" the Comforter; and as the up- 
holding and preserving of created things is 
ascribed to the Father and the Son, so here they 
are ascribed, also, to the Spirit, "sent forth 
from" God to "create and renew the face of the 
earth." 

The next association of the three persons wo 
find in the inspiration of the prophets. "God 
spake unto our fathers by the prophets," says 
Bt. Paul, Heb. L I. St. Peter declares, that 
these "holy men of God spake as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost," 2 Pet. i. 21 ; and 
also thai it was " the spirit of Christ w hioh was 
Inthem." I Pet. i. 11. We may defy any Sooi- 



nian to interpret these three passages by making 
the Spirit an influence or attribute, and there- 
by reducing the term Holy Ghost into a figure 
of speech. "God" in the first passage, is, un- 
questionably, God the Father; and the "holy 
men of God," the prophets, would then, accord- 
ing to this view, be moved by the influence of the 
Father; but the influence, according to the 
third passage, which was the source of their in- 
spiration, was the Spirit, or the influence of 
"Christ." Thus the passages contradict each 
other. Allow the trinity in unity, and you have 
no difficulty in calling the Spirit the Spirit of 
the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, or the 
Spirit of either; but if the Spirit be an influ- 
ence, that influence cannot be the influence of 
two persons, one God, and the other a creature. 
Even if they allowed the preexistence of Christ, 
with Arians, the passages are inexplicable by 
Socinians ; but, denying his preexistence, they 
have no subterfuge but to interpret "the Spirit 
of Christ," the Spirit which prophesied of Christ, 
[New Version, in loc.,) which is a purely gratui- 
tous paraphrase; or, "the spirit of an anointed 
one, or prophet;" that is, the prophet's own 
spirit, which is just as gratuitous, and as un- 
supported by any parallel, as the former. If, 
however, the Holy Spirit be the Spirit of the 
Father and of the Son, united in one essence, 
the passages are easily harmonized. In conjunc- 
tion with the Father and the Son, he is the 
source of that prophetic inspiration under which 
the prophets spoke and acted. So the same 
Spirit which raised Christ from the dead is said 
by St. Peter to have preached by Noah while the 
ark was preparing — an allusion to the passage, 
"My Spirit shall not always strive [contend, 
debate) with man." This, we may observe, 
affords an eminent proof that the writers of the 
New Testament understood the phrase " the 
Spirit of God," as it occurs in the Old Testament, 
personally. For, whatever may be the full mean- 
ing of that difficult passage in St. Peter, Christ 
is clearly declared to have preached by the Spirit 
in the days of Noah; that is, he, by the Spirit, 
inspired Noah to preach. If, then, the apostles 
understood that tho Holy Ghost was a person, a 
point which will presently be established, we 
have, In the text just quoted from tho book of 
Genesis, a key to tho meaning of those texts in 
the Old Testament where the phrases "My 
Spirit," "tho Spirit of God," and the "Spirit of 
the Lord," occur; and inspired authority is thus 
afforded us to interpret them as oi' a person ; and 
if of a person, the very effort made by Sooinians 
to deny ids personality, itself indicates thai that 
person must, from the lofty titles and works 

ascribed to him, be inevitably Pivine. Buoh 



356 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



phrases occur in many passages of the Hebrew 
Scriptures; but in the following the Spirit is 
also eminently distinguished from two other 
persons. "And now the Lord God and his Spirit 
hath sent me," Isa. xlviii. 16 ; or, rendered 
better, "hath sent me and his Spirit," both 
terms being in the accusative case. "Seek ye 
out of the book of the Lord, and read ; for my 
mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath 
gathered them." Isa. xxxiv. 16. "I am with 
you, saith the Lord of hosts : according to the 
word that I covenanted with you when ye came 
out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among 
you : fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of 
hosts, I will shake ail nations, and the Desire 
of all nations shall coine." Haggai ii. 4-7. 
Here, also, the Spirit of the Lord is seen collo- 
cated with the Lord of hosts and the Desire 
of all nations, who is the Messiah. For other 
instances of the indication of a trinity of Divine 
persons in the Old Testament, see chap. ix. 

Three persons, and three only, are associated 
also, both in the Old and New Testament, as ob- 
jects of supreme worship ; as the one name in 
which the religious act of solemn benediction is 
performed, and to which men are bound by 
solemn religious covenant. 

In the plural form of the name of God, which 
has already been considered, (chapter ix.,) each 
received equal adoration. That threefold per- 
sonality seems to have given rise to the standing 
form of triple benediction used by the Jewish 
high priest, also before mentioned, (chapter ix.) 
The very important fact that in the vision of 
Isaiah, chapter vi., the Lord of hosts, who spake 
unto the prophet, is in Acts xxviii. 25 said to be 
the Holt Ghost who spake to the prophet, while 
St. John declares that the glory which Isaiah 
saw was the glory of Christ, proves, indisputa- 
bly, (chapter ix.,). that each of the three persons 
bears this august appellation : it gives also the 
reason for the threefold repetition " Holt, holt, 
holt," and it exhibits the prophet and the very 
seraphs in deep and awful adoration before the 
triune Lord of hosts. Both the prophet and the 
seraphim were, therefore, worshippers of the 
Holy Ghost and of the Son, at the very time and 
by the very acts in which they worshipped the 
Father, which proves that, as the three persons 
received equal homage in a case which does not 
admit of the evasion of pretended superior and 
inferior worship, they are equal in majesty, glory, 
and essence. 

As in the tabernacle form of benediction the 
triune Jehovah is recognized as the source of all 
grace and peace to his creatures, so in the apos- 
tolic formula of blessing, " The grace of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the com- 



munion of the Holt Spirit, be with you all. 
Amen." Here the personality of the three is 
kept distinct, and the prayer to the three is, that 
Christians may have a common participation of the 
Holy Spirit ; that is, doubtless, as he was promised 
by our Lord to his disciples, as a Comforter, as 
the source of light and spiritual life, as the 
author of regeneration. Thus the Spirit is ac- 
knowledged, equally with the Father and the 
Son, to be the source and the giver of the high- 
est spiritual blessings, while the solemn minis- 
terial benediction is, from its specific character, 
to be regarded as an act of prayer to each of the 
three persons, and therefore is, at once, an ac- 
knowledgment of the Divinity and personality of 
each. The same remark applies to Rev. i. 4, 5, 
" Grace be unto you and peace from Him which 
was, and which is, and which is to come ; and 
from the seven spirits which are before his 
throne," (an emblematical representation, in ref- 
erence, probably, to the golden branch with its 
seven lamps,) "and from Jesus Christ." The 
style of the book sufficiently accounts for the 
Holy Spirit being called "the seven spirits;" 
but no created spirit or company of created 
spirits are ever spoken of under that appellation ; 
and the place assigned to the seven spirits be- 
tween the mention of the Father and the Son, 



indicates, with certainty, that one of the sacred 
three, so eminent, and so exclusively eminent in 
both dispensations, is intended. 

The form of baptism next presents itself with 
demonstrative evidence on the two points before 
us, the personality and Divinity of the Holy 
Spirit. It is the form of covenant by which the 
sacred three become our one or onlt God, and 
we become his people. "Go ye, therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holt 
Ghost." In what manner is this text to be dis- 
posed of, if the personality of the Holy Ghost is 
denied ? Is the form of baptism to be so under- 
stood as to imply that it is baptism in the name 
of one God, one creature, and one attribute? The 
grossness of this absurdity refutes it, and proves 
that here, at least, there can be no personifica- 
tion. If all the three, therefore, are persons, 
are we to make Christian baptism a baptism in 
the name of one God and two creatures ? This 
woiild be too near an approach to idolatry, or, 
rather, it would be idolatry itself ; for, consider- 
ing baptism as an act of dedication to God, the 
acceptance of God as our God, on our part, and 
the renunciation of all other deities, and all other 
religions, what could a heathen convert conceive 
of the two creatures so distinguished from all 
other creatures in heaven and in earth, and so 
! associated with God himself as to form together 



CH. XVII.] 

the one name, to which, by that act, he was de- 
voted, and which he was henceforward to profess 
and honor, but that they were equally Divine, 
unless special care were taken to instruct him 
that but one of the three was God, and the two 
others but creatures ? But of this care, of this 
cautionary instruction, though so obviously ne- 
cessary upon this theory, no single instance can 
be given in all the writings of the apostles. 

Baptism was not a new rite. It was used as a 
religious act among heathens, and especially be- 
fore initiation into their mysteries. Proselytes 
to the law of Moses were, probably, received by 
baptism — whether in, or into, the name of the 
God of Israel does not appear ; * but necessarily 
on professing their faith in him as the true and 
only God. John, the forerunner of our Lord, 
baptized, but it does not appear that he baptized 
in the name or into the name of any one. This 
baptism was to all but our Lord, who needed it 
not, a baptism "unto repentance," that is, on 
profession of repentance, to be followed by 
"fruits meet for repentance," and into the ex- 
pectation of the speedy approach of Messiah. 
But Christian baptism was directed to be in the 
name of three persons, which peculiarly implies, 
first, the form of words to be used by the admin- 
istration ; second, the authority conveyed to re- 
ceive such persons as had been made disciples 
into the Church, and, consequently, into covenant 
with God ; third, the faith required of the per- 
son baptized, faith in the existence of Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, and in their character ac- 
cording to the revelation made of each, first, by 
inspired teachers, and in after times by their 
writings ; and, fourth, consecration to the service 
of the three persons, having one name, which 
could be no other than that of the one God. 
What stronger proof of the Divinity of each can 
be given than in this single passage ? The form 
exhibits three persons, without any note of su- 
periority or inferiority, except that of the mere 
order in which they are placed. It conveys 
authority in the united name, and the authority 
is, therefore, equal. It supposes faith, that is, 
not merely belief, but, as the object of religious 
profession and adherence, trust in each, or col- 
lectively in the one name which unites the three 
in one ; yet that which is Divine only can be 
properly the object of religious truth. It implies 

devotion to the scrvico of each, the yielding of 
obedience, the mnsccration of every power of mind 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



357 



1 'i'i"- bapl I [ytea i- :i disputed point. 

It wan itren mly maintained bj Dr. Ughtfoot, and op- 
Wall iii i, however, made the prac- 
tice highly probablo; and it is Bpokeo of In the Go pels 
rite with which the Jewa were familiar, Certainly 
.i |.i.i. tice amon ■. the J< ni ai th< I hi I Uao i ra. 



and body to each, and, therefore, each must have 
an equal right to this surrender and to the au- 
thority which it implies. 

It has been objected that baptism is, in the 
book of Acts, frequently mentioned as baptism 
"in the name of the Lord Jesus" simply, and 
from hence the Socinians would infer that the 
formula in the Gospel of St. Matthew was not in 
use. If this were so, it would only conclude 
against the use of the words of our Lord as the 
standing form of baptism, but would prove no- 
thing against the significancy of baptism in what- 
ever form it might be administered. For as this 
passage in St. Matthew was the original commis- 
sion under which, alone, the apostles had author- 
ity to baptize at all, the import of the rite is 
marked out in it, and, whatever words they used 
in baptism, they were found to explain the im- 
port of the rite, as laid down by their Master, to 
all disciples so received. But, from the passages 
adduced from the Acts, the inference that the 
form of baptism given in Matthew was not rigor- 
ously followed by the apostles does not follow, 
"because the earliest Christian writers inform us 
that this solemn form of expression was uni- 
formly employed from the beginning of the 
Christian Church. It is true, indeed, that the 
Apostle Peter said to those who were converted 
on the day of pentecost, (Acts ii. 38,) 'Bepent, 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of 
Jesus Christ;' and that, in different places of the 
book of Acts, it is said that persons were baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus ; but there is in- 
ternal evidence from the New Testament itself 
that, when the historian says that persons were 
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, he means 
they were baptized according to the form pre- 
scribed by Jesus. Thus the question put, (Acts 
xix. 3,) 'Unto what then were ye baptized?' shows 
that he did not suppose it possible for any per- 
son who administered Christian baptism to omit 
the mention of 'the Holy Ghost;' and even after 
the question, the historian, when he informs us 
that the disciples were baptized, is not solicitous 
to repeat the whole form, but says, in his usual 
manner, (Acts xix. 5,) 'When they heard this, 
they were baptized, in the name of tho Lord 
Jesus.' There is another question put by the 
Apostle Paul, which shows us in what light he 
viewed the form of baptism: (1 Cor. i. 13:) ' Wore 
ye baptized in the name of Paul?' Here the 
question implies that ho considered tho form o[' 

baptism as so saored, that the introducing tho 

name of a teacher into it was the same thing as 

Introducing a. new master into the kingdom o( 

Christ." 

Boolesiastioa] antiquity oomes in, also, to estab- 
lish the exaot OSe of this form in baptism, as tho 



358 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



practice from the days of the apostles. The most 
ancient method was for the persons to be baptized 
to say, "I believe in God the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost." This was his profession 
of faith ; and with respect to the administration, 
Justin Martyr, who was born soon after the death 
of the Apostle John, says, in his first Apology, 
"Whosoever can be persuaded and believe that 
those things which are taught and asserted by us 
are true — are brought by us to a place where 
there is water, and regenerated according to the 
rite of regeneration, by which we ourselves have 
been born again. For then they are washed in 
the water, in the name of God the Father and 
Lord of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and 
of the Holy Ghost." This passage, I may ob- 
serve by the way, shows that, in the primitive 
Church, men were not baptized in order to their 
being taught, but taught in order to their being 
baptized, and that, consequently, baptism was 
not a mere expression of willingness to be in- 
structed, but a profession of faith, and a conse- 
cration to the trinity, after the course of instruc- 
tion was completed. Tertullian also says, " The 
law of baptism is enjoined and the form pre- 
scribed, Go teach the nations, baptizing them 
into the name of the Father, and the Son, and 
the Holy Spirit." — De Baptismo. 

The testimonies to this effect are abundant, 1 
and, together with the form given by our Lord, 
they prove that every Christian in the first ages 
did, upon his very entrance into the Church of 
Christ, profess his faith in the Divinity and per- 
sonality of the Holy Ghost, as well as of the 
Father and the Son. 

But other arguments are not wanting to prove 
both the personality and the Divinity of the Holy 
Spirit. With respect to the former, 

1. The mode of his subsistence in the sacred 
trinity proves his personality. Be proceeds from 
the Father and the Son, and cannot, therefore, 
be either. To say that an attribute proceeds and 
comes forth would be a gross absurdity. 

2. From so many scriptures being wholly un- 
intelligible and even absurd, unless the Holy 
Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as those 
who take the phrase as ascribing no more than a 
figurative personality to an attribute, make that 
attribute to be the energy or poiccr of God, they 
reduce such passages as the following to utter 
unmeaningness : "God anointed Jesus with the 
Holy Ghost and with poicer" that is, with the 
power of God and with power. "That ye may 
abound in hope through the power of the Holy 
Ghost," that is, through the power of power. 
"In demonstration of the Spirit and of power," 

1 See Wall's History of Infant Baptism and Bingham's 
Antiquities. 



I that is, in demonstration of power and of power. 
And if it should be pleaded that the last passage 

lis a Hebraism for "powerful demonstration of 
the Spirit," it makes the interpretation still more 

: obviously absurd, for it would then be "the 

1 powerful demonstration of power." "It seemed 
good to the Holy Ghost," to the power of God, 
"and to us." "The Spirit and the bride say, 
Come," — the power of God and the bride say, 
Come. Modern Unitarians, from Dr. Priestley 
to Mr. Belsham, venture to find fault with the 
style of the apostles in some instances ; and those 
penmen of the Holy Spirit have, indeed, a very 
unfortunate method of expressing themselves for 
those who would make them the patrons of Soci- 
nianism ; but they would more justly deserve the 
censures of these judges of the "words which 
the Holy Ghost" taught, had they been really 
such writers as the Socinian scheme would make 
them, and of which the above are instances. 

3. Personification of any kind is, in some pas- 
sages in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of, im- 
possible. The reality which this figure of speech 
is said to present to us, is either some of the 
attributes of God, or else the doctrine of the 
gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon the 
following passages : "He shall not speak of him- 
self, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he 
speak." What attribute of God can here be per- 
sonified ? And if the doctrine of the gospel be 
arrayed with personal attributes, where is there 
an instance of so monstrous a prosopopoeia as 
this passage would present ? the doctrine of the 
gospel not speaking " of himself," but speaking 
"whatsoever he shall hear!" "The Spirit 
maketh intercession for us." What attribute is 
capable of interceding, or how can the doctrine 
of the gospel intercede ? Personification, too, is 
the language of poetry, and takes place natur- 
ally only in excited and elevated discourse ; but 
if the Holy Spirit be a personification, we find it 
in the ordinary and cool strain of mere narra- 
tion and argumentative discourse in the New 
Testament, and in the most incidental conversa- 
tions. "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since 
ye believed? We have not so much as heard 
whether there be any Holy Ghost." How im- 
possible is it here to extort, by any process what- 
ever, even the shadow of a personification of 
either any attribute of God, or of the doctrine of 
the gospel! So again, "The Spirit said unto 
Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." 
Could it be any attribute of God which said this, 
or could it be the doctrine of the gospel ? 

It is in vain, then, to speak of the personifica- 
tion of wisdom in the book of Proverbs, and of 
charity in the writings of St. Paul ; and if evon 
instances of the personification of Divine attri- 



CH. XVII.] 

butes and of the doctrine of the gospel could be 
found under this very term, the Holy Spirit, yet 
the above texts and numerous other passages, 
being utterly incapable of being so resolved, 
•would still teach the doctrine of a personal Holy 
Ghost. The passage on which such interpreters 
chiefly rely as an instance of the personification 
of the doctrine of the gospel is 2 Cor. iii. 6, 
"Who also hath made us able ministers of the 
New Testament, not of the letter, but of the 
Spirit ; for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giv- 
eth life." To this Witsius well replies : — 

"Were we to grant that the Spirit, by a me- 
tonymy, denotes the doctrine of the gospel ; what 
is improperly ascribed there to the gospel as an 
exemplary cause, is properly to be attributed to 
the person of the Holy Spirit, as the principal 
efficient cause. Thus also that which is elsewhere 
ascribed to the letter of the law, is, by the same 
analogy, to be attributed to the person of the 
lawgiver. But it does not seem necessary for us 
to make such a concession. The apostle does 
not call the law 'the letter;' or the gospel 'the 
Spirit;' but teaches that the letter is in the law, 
and the Spirit in the gospel, so that they who 
minister to the law, minister to the letter ; they 
who minister to the gospel, to the Spirit. He 
calls that the letter, which is unable at first, and 
by itself, to convert a man ; or to give a sinner 
the hope of life, much less to quicken him. By 
the Spirit, he understands both the person of the 
Spirit and his quickening grace ; which is clearly 
disclosed, and rendered efficacious, by means of 
the gospel. In a preceding verse, the apostle 
undoubtedly distinguishes the Spirit from the 
doctrine, when he calls the Corinthians 'the 
epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with 
the Spirit of the living God.' " — Exposition of 
Creed. 

Finally, that the Holy Ghost is a person, and 
not an attribute, is proved by the use of mascu- 
line pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the 
New Testament, in connection with the neuter 
noun 7rvevfj,a, Spirit; and by so many distinct 
personal acts being ascribed to him, as, to come, 
to go, to be sent, to teach, to guide, to comfort, to 
make intercession, to bear witness, to give gifts, 
" dividing them to every man as he will," to be 
vexed, grieved, and quenched. These cannot be 
applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they, 
therefore, establish the Spirit's true personality. 

Some additional arguments to those before 
given in establish tho Divinitv of the Holy 
Ghoat, may also be adduced. 

The firs! is taken from his being the subject 

of blasphemy—- "the blasphemy against the Holy 

(Jhosl shall not be forgiven onto men." Matt. 

II. This blasphemy oonsisted In ascribing 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



359 



his miraculous works to Satan ; and that he is 
capable of being blasphemed proves him to be 
as much a person as the Son; and it proves him 
to be Divine, because it shows that he may be 
sinned against, and so sinned against that the 
blasphemer shall not be forgiven. A person he 
must be, or he could not be blasphemed : a Divine 
person he must be to constitute this blasphemy a 
sin against him in the proper sense, and of so 
malignant a kind as to place it beyond the reach 
of mercy. 

He is called God. "Why hath Satan filled 
thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? Why 
hast thou conceived this in thine heart ? Thou 
hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Ananias 
is said to have lied, particularly "unto the Holy 
Ghost," because the apostles were under his 
special direction, in establishing the temporary 
regulation among Christians that they should 
have all things in common : the detection of the 
crime itself was a demonstration of the Divinity 
of the Spirit, because it showed his omniscience, 
his knowledge of the most secret acts. In addi- 
tion to the proof of his Divinity thus afforded 
by this history, he is also called God : " Thou hast 
not lied unto men, but unto God." He is also 
called the Lord: "Now the Lord is that Spirit." 
2 Cor. iii. 17. He is eternal, "the eternal 
Spirit." Heb. ix. 14. Omnipresence is ascribed 
to him: "Your body is the temple of the Holy 
Ghost:" "As many as are led by the Spirit of 
God, they are the sons of God." Now, as all true 
Christians are his temples, and are led by him, 
he must be present to them at all times and in 
all places. He is said to be Omniscient: "The 
Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things 
of God." Here the Spirit is said to search or 
know "all things" absolutely; and then, to 
make this more emphatic, that he knows "the 
deep things of God," things hidden from every 
creature, the depths of his essence, and the 
secrets of his counsels ; for that this is intended 
appears from the next verse, where he is said to 
know " the things of God," as the spirit of a man 
knows the things of a man. Supreme Majesty 
is also attributed to him, so that " to lie to him," 
to "blaspheme" him, "to vex" him, to do him 
"despite," are sins, and render the offender 
liable to Divine punishment. 

He is the source of inspiration. " Holy men 
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost." "He will guide you into all truth." 
Be is the source and fountain of Uffl. "It is 
the Spirit that quickeneth." "He that railed 
up Christ from the dead shall quicken your mor- 
tal bodies, by his Spirit that duelleth in yon.'' 
As WO have seen him acting in the material crea- 
tion, so ho is the author of the m:\\ cui:.\no.\. 



360 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE; 



which is as evidently a work of Divine power as 
the former : " Born of the Spirit;" " The renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost." He is the author of 
religious comfort — "The Comforter." The moral 
attributes of God are also given to him. Holi- 
ness, which includes all in one : the Holy Ghost 
is his eminent designation. Goodness and grace 
are his attributes : " Thy Spirit is good." "The 
Spirit of grace." Truth also, for he is "the 
Spirit of truth." 

How impracticable it is to interpret the phrase, 
" The Holy Ghost," as a periphrasis for God him- 
self, has been proved in considering some of the 
above passages, and will be obvious from the 
slightest consideration of the texts. A Spirit, 
which is the Spirit or God ; which is so often 
distinguished from the Father; which "sees" 
and "hears" "the Father;" which searches 
"the deep things" of God; which is "sent" by 
the Father; which "proceedeth" from him; 
and who has special prater addressed to him at 
the same time as the Father, cannot, though 
"one with him," be the Father; and that he is 
not the Son, is acknowledged on both sides. 

As a Divine person, our regards are, there- 
fore, justly due to him as the object of worship 
and trust, of prayer and blessing: duties to 
which we are specially called, both by the gen- 
eral consideration of his Divinity, and by that 
affectingly benevolent and attractive character 
under which he is presented to us in the whole 
Scriptures. In creation, we see him moving upon 
the face of chaos, and reducing it to a beautiful 
order: in providence, "renewing the face of the 
earth," "garnishing the heavens," and "giving 
life" to man: in grace, we behold him expand- 
ing the prophetic scene to the vision of the seers 
of the Old Testament, and making a perfect reve- 
lation of the doctrine of Christ to the apostles of 
the New. He "reproves the world of sin," and 
works secret conviction of its evil and danger in 
the heart. He is "the Spirit of grace and of 
supplications:" the softened heart, the yielding 
will, all heavenly desires and tendencies, are from 
him. He hastens to the troubled spirits of peni- 
tent men, who are led by his influence to Christ, 
and in whose hearts he has wrought faith, with 
the news of pardon, and "bears witness" of their 
sonship "with their spirit." He aids their "in- 
firmities;" makes "intercession for them;" in- 
spires thoughts of consolation and feelings of 
peace ; plants and perfects in them whatsoever 
things are pure, and lovely, and honest, and of 
good report ; delights in his own work in the re- 
newed heart ; dwells in the soul as in a temple ; 
and, after having rendered the spirit to God, 
without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, sanc- 
tified and meet for heaven, finishes his benevo- 



[part n. 

lent and glorious work by raising the bodies of 
saints in immortal life at the last day. So power- 
fully does " the Spirit of glory and of God" claim 
our love, our praise, and our obedience ! In the 
forms of the churches of Christ, in all ages, he 
has, therefore, been associated with the Father 
and the Son, in equal glory and blessing ; and 
where such forms are not in use, this distinct 
recognition of the Spirit, so much in danger of 
being neglected, ought, by ministers, to be most 
carefully and constantly made, in every gratula- 
tory act of devotion, that so equally to each per- 
son of the eternal trinity glory may be given "in 
the Church throughout all ages. Amen." 

The essential and fundamental character of the 
doctrine of the holy and undivided trinity has 
been already stated ; and the more fully the evi- 
dences of the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit 
are educed from the sacred writings, the more 
deeply we shall be impressed with this view, and 
the more binding will be our obligation to "con- 
tend earnestly for" this part of "the faith which 
was once delivered unto the saints." Nor can 
the plea here be ever soundly urged, that this is 
a merely speculative doctrine ; for, as it has been 
well observed by a learned writer, "The truth 
is, the doctrine of the trinity is so far from being 
merely a matter of speculation, that it is the very 
essence of the Christian religion, the foundation 
of the whole revelation, and connected with every 
part of it. All that is peculiar in this religion 
has relation to the redemption of Christ, and the 
sanctification of the Spirit. And whosoever is 
endeavoring to invalidate these articles is over- 
throwing or undermining the authority of this 
dispensation, and reducing it to a good moral 
system only, or treatise of ethics. 

"If the Word, or Logos, who became incarnate, 
was a created being only, then the mystery of his 
incarnation, so much insisted on in Scripture, 
and the love expressed to mankind thereby, so 
much magnified, dwindle into an interested ser- 
vice ; and a short life of sufferings, concluded, 
indeed, with a painful death, is rewarded with 
Divine honors, and a creature advanced thereby 
to the glory of the Creator ; for the command is 
plain and express, that ' all the angels of God' 
should ' worship him.' And have not many saints 
and martyrs undergone the same sufferings with- 
out the like glorious recompense ? And is not 
the advantage to Christ himself, by his incarnation 
and passion, greater on this supposition than to 
men, for whose sake the sacred writers represent 
this scheme of mercy undertaken ? 

Again: if the motions of the Holy Spirit, so 
frequently spoken of, are only figurative expres- 
sions, and do not necessarily imply any real per- 
son who is the author of them, or if this person 



CH. XVIII.] 



be only a created being, then we are deprived of 
all hopes of Divine assistance in our spiritual 
warfare, and have nothing but our own natural 
abilities wherewith to contend against the world, 
the flesh, and the Devil. And is it not amazing 
that this article could ever be represented as a 
mere abstracted speculation, when our deliver- 
ance both from the penalty and power of sin does 
so plainly depend upon it ? In the sacred writ- 
ings, a true faith is made as necessary as a right 
practice, and this in particular in order to that 
end. For Arianism, Socinianism, and all those 
several heresies, of what kind or title soever, 
which destroy the Divinity of the Son and Holy 
Ghost, are, indeed, no other than different 
schemes of infidelity; since the authority, end, 
and influence of the gospel are as effectually made 
void by disowning the characters in which our 
Redeemer and Sanctifier are there represented, 
as even by contesting the evidences of its Divine 
original. These notions plainly rob those two 
Divine persons of their operations and attributes, 
and of the honor due to them : lessen the mercy 
and mystery of the scheme of our salvation : de- 
grade our notion of ourselves and our fellow- 
creatures : alter the nature of several duties, and 
weaken those great motives to the observance of 
all that true Christianity proposes to us." (Dod- 
well.) 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



361 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

FALL OF MAN — DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN. 

The scriptural character of God having been 
adduced from the inspired writings, we now pro- 
ceed, in pursuance of our plan, to consider their 
testimony as to man, both in the estate in which 
ho was first created, and in that lapsed condition 
into which the first act of disobedience plunged 
the first pair and their whole posterity. 

Besides that natural government of God, which 
is exercised over material things, over mere ani- 
mals, and over rational beings, considered merely 
as parts of the great visible creation, which must 
bo conserved and regulated so as to preserve its 
order and accomplish its natural purposes, there 
is evidence of the existence of an administration 
of another kind. This we call moral govern- 
ment, because it has respect to the actions of ra- 
tional creatures, considered as good and evil, 
which qualities are necessarily determined, at 
i a i i" as, by a, law, and that law the will of 
Qod. Whether things arc good <>r evil by a sorl 
"I' eterna] fitness or unfitness in themselves, and 
not made bo bj the will of God, is a, question 
which has bi cm agitated from the days of the 



schoolmen. Like many other similar questions, 
however, this is a profitless one ; for as we can- 
not comprehend the eternal reason and fitness of 
things on the whole, we could have no certain 
means of determining the moral qualities of 
things, without a declaration of the will of God, 
who alone knows them both absolutely and rela- 
tively, possibly and really, to perfection. As for 
the distinctions that some things are good or evil 
antecedently to the will of God — some conse- 
quently upon it, and some both one and the 
other — it may be observed that, if by the will of 
God we are to understand one of his attributes, 
nothing can be antecedent to his will ; and if we 
understand it to mean the declared will of God, 
in the form of command or law, then nothing 
can be rewardable or punishable antecedent to 
the will of God, which only in that form becomes 
the rule of the conduct of his creatures ; and is, 
in all the instances with which we are acquainted, 
revealed, under the sanction of rewards or pun- 
ishments. 

" But is the will of God the cause of his law ? 
Is his will the original of right and wrong ? Is 
a thing therefore right because God wills it ? or 
does he will it because it is right ? I fear this 
celebrated question is more curious than useful ; 
and perhaps, in the manner in which it is usually 
treated of, it does not well consist with the re- 
gard that is due from a creature to the Creator 
and Governor of all things. Nevertheless, with 
awe and reverence we may speak a little. 

" It seems then that the whole difficulty arises 
from considering God's will as distinct from God. 
Otherwise it vanishes away ; for none can doubt 
but God is the cause of the law of God. But the 
will of God is God himself. It is God considered 
as willing thus and thus ; consequently, to say 
that the will of God, or that God himself, is the 
cause of law, is one and the same thing. 

"Again: if the law, the immutable rule of 
right and wrong, depends on the nature and fit- 
ness of things, and on their essential relations to 
each other : (I do not say their eternal relations, 
because the eternal relations of things existing 
in time is little less than a contradiction:) if I 
say this depends on the nature and relations of 
things, then it must depend on God, or the will 
of God; because those things themselves, with 
all their relations, are the work of his hands. 
By his will, for his pleasure alone, they are and 
were created, And yet it may be granted, which 
is, probably, all that a considerate person would 

contend for, that in every particular case liod 
wills thus or thus, (suppose that men should ho- 
nor their parents.) because it is right, agreeable 
to the fitness of things, to the relation in which 
they stand." — Wksi.m 



362 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



All the moral and accountable creatures •with, 
■which the Scriptures make us acquainted are 
angels, devils, and men. The first are inhabit- 
ants of heaven, and dwell in the immediate pre- 
sence of God, though often employed on services 
to the children of men in this world. The se- 
cond are represented as being in darkness and 
punishment as their general and collective con- 
dition, but still having access to this world by 
permission of God, for purposes of temptation 
and mischief, and as waiting for a final judgment 
and a heavier doom. Whether any other rational 
beings exist, not included in any of the above 
classes, dwelling in the planets and other celes- 
tial bodies, and regions of space, visible or in- 
visible to us, and collectively forming an im- 
mensely extended and immeasurable creation, 
cannot be certainly determined ; and all that can 
be said is, that the opinion is favored by certain 
natural analogies between the planet we inhabit 
and other planetary bodies, and between our sun 
and planetary system and the fixed stars, which 
are deemed to be solar centres of other planetary 
systems. But were this established, there is no- 
thing in the fact, as some have supposed, to in- 
terfere with any view which the Scriptures give 
us of the moral government of God as to this 
world. (See page 139.) Were our race alone in 
the universe, we should not be greater than we 
are : if, on the contrary, we are associated with 
countless myriads of fellow-rationals in different 
and distinct residences, we are not thereby mini- 
fied. If they are under moral government, so 
are we : if they are not, which no one can prove, 
the evidences that we are accountable creatures 
remain the same. If they have never fallen, the 
fact of our redemption cannot be affected by that ; 
and if they need a Saviour, we may well leave 
the method of providing for their case, or the 
reasons of their pretention, to the wisdom of 
God : it is a fact which we have not before us, 
and on which we cannot reason. No sinister use 
at all can be made of the mere probability of the 
plurality of rational worlds, except to persuade 
us that we are so little and insignificant as to 
make it a vain presumption to suppose that we 
are the objects of Divine love. But nothing can 
be even more unphilosophical than the sugges- 
tion, since it supposes that, in proportion as the 
common Father multiplies his offspring, he must 
love each individual less, or be more inattentive 
to his interests; and because it estimates the 
importance of man by the existence of beings to 
which he has no relation, rather than by his re- 
lation to God, and his own capacity of improve- 
ment, pleasure, pain, and immortality. Accord- 
ing to this absurd dream of infidelity, every in- 
dividual in the British empire would annually 



[PART II. 



• lose his weight and worth in the sight of his 
Maker as a moral and intellectual being, because 

; there is a great annual increase of its popula- 

\ tion. 

The law under which all moral agents are 
placed, there is reason to believe, is substan- 
tially, and in its great principles, the same, and 
is included in this epitome, " Thou shalt love 

j the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with 
all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with 
all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." 
For though this is spoken to men, yet, as it is 
founded, in both its parts, upon the natural rela- 
tion of every intelligent creature to God and 
to all other intelligent creatures, it may be pre- 
sumed to be universal. Every creature owes 
obedience to God its Maker, and a benevolent 
Creator could only seek, in the first instance, 
the obedience of love. Every creature must, 
from a revealed character of the Creator, be 
concluded to have been made not only to show 
forth his glory, but itself to enjoy happiness. 
Now the love of God is that affection which 
unites a created intelligent nature to God, the 
source of true happiness, and prevents, in all 
cases, obedience from being felt as a burden, or 
regarded under the cold convictions of mere 
duty. If, therefore, a cheerful obedience from 
the creature be required as that which would 
constantly promote by action the felicity of the 
agent, this law of love is to be considered as the 
law of all moral beings, whether of angels or 
of men. Its comprehensiveness is another pre- 
sumption of its universality; for, unquestion- 
ably, it is a maxim of universal import, that 
"love is the fulfilling of the law," since he who 
loves must choose to be obedient to every com- 
mand issued by the Sovereign, or the Father 
beloved; and when this love is supreme and 
uniform, the obedience must be absolute and 
unceasing. The second command is also "like 
unto it" in these respects — it founds itself on the 
natural relations which exist among the creatures 
of God, and it comprehends every possible rela- 
tive duty. All intelligent creatures were in- 
tended to live in society. We read of no solitary 
rational being being placed in any part of the 
creation. Angels are many, and, from all the 
representations of Scripture, may be considered 
as forming one or more collective bodies. When 
man was created, it was decided that it was not 
good for him to be alone, and when " a help- 
meet for him" was provided, they were com- 
manded to be fruitful and multiply, that the 
number might be increased and the earth "re- 
plenished." The very precepts which oblige us 
to love one another are presumptive that it was 
the will of God, not merely that his rational 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



363 



creatures should live in society and do no in- 
jury to each other, but that they should be 
"kindly affectioned one to another:" a prin- 
ciple from which all acts of relative duty 
would spontaneously flow, and which would 
guard against all hostility, envy, and injury. 
Thus, by these two great first principles of the 
Divine law, the rational creatures of God would 
be united to him as their common Lord and 
Father, and to each other as fellow-subjects and 
brethren. This view is further supported by the 
intimations which the Scriptures afford us of 
the moral state of the only other intelligent 
class of beings beside man with which we are 
acquainted. Angels are constantly exhibited 
as loving God, jealous of his glory, and cheer- 
fully active in the execution of his will ; as be- 
nevolent toward each other, and as tenderly 
affected toward men. Devils, on the contrary, 
who are "the angels that sinned," are repre- 
sented as filled with hatred and malice both 
toward God and every holy creature. 

Indeed, if rational beings are under a law at 
all, it cannot be conceived that less than this 
could be required by the good and holy being, 
their Creator. They are bound to render all 
love, honor, and obedience to him by a natural 
and absolute obligation ; and, as it has been 
demonstrated in the experience of man, any 
thing less would be not only contrary to the 
Creator's glory, but fatal to the creature's happi- 
ness. 

From these views it follows, that all par- 
ticular precepts, whether they relate to God or 
to other rational creatures, arise out of one or 
other of those two "great" and comprehending 
"commandments;" and that every particular 
law supposes the general one. For as in the de- 
calogue and in the writings of the prophets are 
many particular precepts, though in neither are 
these two great commandments expressly re- 
corded — and yet our Saviour has told us that 
" on these two commandments hang all the law 
and the prophets ;" and the Apostle Paul, " For 
this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt 
not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear 
false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be 
any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended 
in this Baying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bor ;is thyself" — we are warranted to conclude 
that all moral, particular precepts presuppose 
those two general ones, wherever they are found, 
and («> whomsoever they are given. 

We may apply this consideration to our first 

parents in their primitive state. When the 

law of Moses was given, engraven on tables of 

by the finger of God, i.\w was not first 

Introduced into the world. Men were accounted 



righteous or wicked between the giving of the 
law and the flood, and before the flood, and 
were dealt with accordingly. Noah was < ' a right- 
eous man," and the "violence" and "wicked- 
ness" of the antediluvian earth were the causes 
of its destruction by water. "Enoch walked 
with God:" Abel was "righteous," and Cain 
"wicked." Now, as the moral quality of 
actions is determined by law, and the moral law 
is a revelation of the will of God ; and as every 
punitive act on his part, and every bestowment 
of rewards and favors expressly on account of 
righteousness, suppose a regal administration, 
men were under a law up to the time of the 
fall, which law, in all its particular precepts, did, 
according to the reasoning of our Lord and St. 
Paul, given above, presuppose the two great 
commandments. That our first parents were 
under a law, is evident from the history of the 
transactions in the garden; but, though but 
one particular command, in the form of a pro- 
hibition, was given, we are not to conclude that 
this was the compass of their requirements, and 
the sole measure of their obedience. It was a 
particular command, which, like those in the de- 
calogue, and in the writings of the prophets, 
presupposed a general law, of which this was 
but one manifestation. Thus are we conducted 
to a more ancient date of the Divine law than 
the solemnities of Sinai, or even the creation of 
man — a law coeval in its declaration with the 
date of rational created existence, and in its 
principles with God himself. " The law of God, 
speaking of the manner of men, is a copy of the 
eternal mind, a transcript of the Divine nature ; 
yea, it is the fairest offspring of the everlasting 
Father, the brightest efflux of his essential wis- 
dom, the visible beauty of the Most High ; the 
original idea of truth and good which were 
lodged in the uncreated mind from eternity." 
(Wesley.) It is " holy, just, and good." 

Under this condition of rational existence 
must Adam, therefore, and every other moral 
agent, have come into being — a condition, of 
course, to which he could not be a party, to 
which he had no right to be a party, had it been 
possible, but which was laid upon him : he was 
made under law, as all his descendants are born 
under law. 1 

1 Tho covenant of works, a term much in use among 
divines, Is one which is not in so much use as formerly; 
but, rightly understood, it has a good sens,-. The word 
usually translated covenant in the New Testament, more 
properly signifies a dispensation ov appointment, which Is, 
Indeed, suited to the majesty of tow, and even the autho- 
ritative establishment of a sole method of pardon. But in 
i>..iii there are parties, no1 to their original Institution, but 
to their beueflcenl accomplishment, and luthisviev each 
may bo termed a covenant. 



364 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



But, that we may more exactly understand 
man's primitive state, considered morally, and 
the nature, extent, and consequences of his fall, 
it is necessary to consider briefly the history of 
his creation. 

The manner in which this is narrated indi- 
cates something peculiar and eminent in the 
being to be formed. In the heavenly bodies 
around the earth, and among all the various pro- 
ductions of its surface, vegetable and animal, 
however perfect in their kinds, and complete, 
beautiful, and excellent in their respective 
natures, not one being was found to whom the 
rest could minister instruction, whom they could 
call forth into meditation, inspire with moral de- 
light, or lead up to the Creator himself. There 
was, properly speaking, no intellectual being: 
none to whom the ivhole, or even any great num- 
ber of the parts of the frame and furniture of 
material nature could minister knowledge: no 
one who could employ upon them the general- 
izing faculty, and make them the basis of induc- 
tive knowledge. If, then, it was not wholly for 
himself that the world was created by God ; and 
angels, if they, as it is indicated in Scripture, 
had a prior existence, were not so immediately 
connected with this system that it can be sup- 
posed to have been made immediately for them; 
a rational inhabitant was obviously still want- 
ing to complete the work, and to constitute a 
perfect whole. The formation of such a being 
was marked, therefore, by a manner of proceed- 
ing which serves to impress us with a sense of 
the greatness of the work. Not that it could be 
a matter of more difficulty to Omnipotence to 
create man than any thing beside ; but prin- 
cipally, it is probable, because he was to be the 
lord of the whole, and to be, therefore, himself 
accountable to the original proprietor, and to 
exhibit the existence of another species of 
government, a moral administration ; and to be 
the only creature constituted an image of the 
intellectual and moral perfections, and of the 
immortality of the common Maker. Every thing, 
therefore, as to man's creation is given in a 
solemn and deliberative form, together with 
an intimation of a trinity of persons in the God- 
head, all Divine, because all equally possessed 
of creative power, and to each of whom man 
was to stand in relations so sacred and intimate. 
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness ; and let them have dominion," 
etc. In what, then, did this "image" and "like- 
ness" consist? 

That human nature has two essential, con- 
stituent parts, is manifest from the history of 
Moses : the body, formed out of preexistent 
matter, the earth ; and a living soul, breathed 



[PART II. 

into the body, by an inspiration from God. 
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust 
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils 
(or face) the breath of life, (lives.) and man 
became a living soul." Whatever was thus 
imparted to the body of man, already "formed," 
and perfectly fashioned in all its parts, was the 
only cause of life ; and the whole tenor of Scrip- 
ture shows that that was the rational spirit 
itself, which, by a law of its Creator, was in- 
capable of death, even after the body had fallen 
under that penalty. 

The "image" or likeness of God in which 
man was made, has, by some, been assigned to 
the body : by others, to the soul : others, again, 
have found it in the circumstance of his having 
"dominion" over the other creatures. As to the 
body, it is not necessary to take up any large 
space to prove that in no sense can that bear the 
image of God, that is, be "like" God. Descant 
ever so much or ever so poetically upon man's 
upright and noble form, an upright form has no 
more likeness to God than a prone or reptile one: 
God is incorporeal, and has no bodily shape to be 
the antitype of any thing material. 

This, also, is fatal to the notion that the image 
of God in man consisted in the "dominion" 
which was granted to him over this lower world. 
Limited dominion may, it is true, be an image 
of large and absolute dominion, but man is not 
said to have been made in the image of God's 
dominion — which is an accident merely, for, 
before any creatures existed, God himself could 
have no dominion — but in the image and likeness 
of God himself, — of something which constitutes 
his nature. Still further, man, according to the 
history, was evidently made in the image of God, 
in order to his having dominion, as the Hebrew 
particle imports. He who was to have dominion 
must, necessarily, be made before he could be 
invested with it, and, therefore, dominion was 
consequent to his existing in the "image" and 
"likeness" of God, and could not be that image 
itself. 

The attempts which have been made to fix 
upon some one essential quality in which to place 
that "image" of God in which man was created, 
are not only uncalled for by any scriptural reason, 
but are even contradicted by various parts of 
Scripture, from which, alone, we can derive our 
information on this subject. It is in vain to say 
that this "image" must be something essential to 
human nature, something only which cannot be 
lost. We shall, it is true, find that the revelation 
places it in what is essential to human nature ; 
but that it should comprehend nothing else, or 
one quality only, has no proof or reason ; and tvo 
are, in fact, taught that it comprises also what is 



CH. XVIII.] 

not essential to human nature, and what may be 
lost and be regained. As to both, the evidence 
of Scripture is explicit. When God is called 
"the Father of spirits," a likeness is certainly- 
intimated between man and God in the spiritual- 
ity of their nature. This is also implied in the 
striking argument of St. Paul with the Athenians : 
"Forasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of 
God, we ought not to think that the Godhead 
is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by 
art, and man's device;" plainly referring to the 
idolatrous statues by which God was represented 
among heathens. If likeness to God in man 
consisted in bodily shape, this would not have 
been an argument against human representations 
of the Deity ; but it imports, as Howe well ex- 
presses it, that "we are to understand that our 
resemblance to him, as we are his offspring, lies 
in some higher, more noble, and more excellent 
thing, of which there can be no figure ; as who 
can tell how to give the figure or image of a 
thought, or of the mind or thinking power?" 
In spirituality, and, consequently, immateriality, 
this image of God in man, then, in the first ex- 
istence, consists. Nor is it any valid objection 
to say that "immateriality is not peculiar to the 
soul of man, for we have reason to believe that 
the inferior animals of the earth are actuated by 
an immaterial principle." (Gleig's Stackhouse.) 
This is as certain as analogy can make it; but if 
we allow a spiritual principle to animals, its kind 
is obviously inferior ; for the spirit which is in- 
capable of continuous induction and moral know- 
ledge, must be of an inferior order to the spirit 
which possesses these capabilities; and this is 
the kind of spirituality which is peculiar to 
man. 

The sentiment expressed in Wisdom ii. 23, is 
evidence that, in the opinion of the ancient Jews, 
the image of God in man comprised immortality 
also. "For God created man to be immortal, 
and made him to be an image of his own eter- 
nity ;" and though other creatures, and even the 
body of man, were made capable of immortality, 
and at least the material human frame, whatever 
we may think of the case of animals, would have 
escaped death, had not sin entered the world, 
yet, without running into the absurdity of the 
"natural immortality" of the human soul, that 
essence must have been constituted immortal in 
» high and peculiar sense, which lias ever retained 
Us prerogative of eternal duration amidst tho 
universal death, not only of animals, but of tho 
bodies of all human beings. To me there appears 

a manifest allusion to man's immortality, as 

being included in the image of Gk>d, In the rea- 
son which is given in Genesis for the Lan whioh 
Inflicts death on mu "Whoso shed- 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



365 



deth man's blood, by man shall his blood be 
shed ; for in the image of God made he man." 
The essence of the crime of homicide cannot be 
in the putting to death the merely animal part of 
man ; and must, therefore, lie in the peculiar 
value of life to an immortal being, accountable 
in another state for the actions done in this, and 
whose life ought to be specially guarded, for 
this very reason, that death introduces him into 
changeless and eternal relations, which were not 
to lie at the sport or mercy of human passions. 

To these we are to add the intellectual powers, 
and we have what divines have called, in perfect 
accordance with the Scriptures, the natural 
image of God in his creature, which is essential 
and ineffaceable. He was made capable of 
knowledge, and he was endowed with liberty of 
will. 

This natural image of God in which man was 
created, was the foundation of that moral image 
by which also he was distinguished. Unless he 
had been a spiritual, knowing, and willing being, 
he would have been wholly incapable of moral 
qualities. That he had such qualities eminently, 
and that in them consisted the image of God, as 
well as in the natural attributes just stated, we 
have also the express testimony of Scripture. " Lo, 
this only have I found, that God hath made man 
upright, but they have sought out many inven- 
tions." The objections taken to this proof are 
thus satisfactorily answered by President Ed- 
wards : — 

"It is an observation of no weight which 
Dr. Taylor makes on this text, that the word man 
is commonly used to signify mankind in general, 
or mankind collectively taken. It is true, it 
often signifies the species of mankind ; but then 
it is used to signify the species with regard to its 
duration and succession from its beginning, as 
well as with regard to its extent. The English 
word mankind is used to signify the species ; but 
what then ? Would it be an improper way of 
speaking to say, that when God first made man- 
kind, he placed them in a pleasant paradise, 
(meaning in their first parents,) but now they 
live in the midst of briers and thorns ? And it 
is certain, that to speak thus of God making 
mankind — his giving the species an existence in 
their first parents, at the creation — is agreeable 
to tho Scripture use of such an expression. As 
in Dcut. iv. 32, ( Since the day that Qod CKBATBD 
max upon the earth. 1 .Job xx. -1, 'Khowest thou 
not (his of old, aince man was placed upon the 
earth/ Isaiah \lv. 12, '/ hare made (lie earth, and 
0EBAT1D man upon it: I, even my hands, hare 

stretched out the heavens.' Jer. txvii. 6, •/ nwi 

m \im: the earth, the M \\ and the beast (hat are upon 

the ground, by my great power. 1 All these 



366 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



speak of God making man, signifying the species 
of mankind; and vet they all plainly hare 
respect to God making man at first, when he 
'■made the earth,' 'and stretched out the heavens. 7 
In all these places the same word, Adam, is nsed 
as in Ecclesiastes ; and in the last of these, nsed 
with (he emphaticum) the emphatic sign, as here ; 
though Dr. T. omits it when he tells ns he gives 
us a catalogue of all the places in Scripture 
where the word is used. And it argues nothing 
to the Doctor's purpose that the pronoun they is 
used, — ' They have sought out many inventions.' [ 
This is properly applied to the species, which God 
made at first upright: the species begun with ; 
more than one, and continued in a multitude. 
As Christ speaks of the two sexes, in the rela- ! 
tion of man and wife, continued in successive 
generations : Matt. xix. 4, 'He that 3Iade them at 
the beginning, made them male and female:' having 
reference to Adam and Eve. 

" No less impertinent, and also very unfair, is 
his criticism on the word ("ic) translated upright, j 
Because the word sometimes signifies right, he 
would from thence infer that it does not pro- 
perly signify moral rectitude, even when used to 
express the character of moral agents. He 
might as well insist that the English word upright 
sometimes, and in its most original meaning, '' 
signifies right-up, or in an erect posture — there- 
fore it does not properly signify any moral 
character, when applied to moral agents. And j 
indeed less unreasonably ; for it is known that in 
the Hebrew language, in a peculiar manner, most 
words used to signify moral and spiritual things 
are taken from external and natural objects, '• 
The word (*&) Jashur is used, as applied to ; 
moral agents, or to the words and actions of such, j 
(if I have not misreckoned,) about a hundred and 
ten times in Scripture ; and in about a hundred 
of them, without all dispute, to signify virtue, or 
moral rectitude, (though Dr. T. is pleased to say , 
the word does not generally signify a moral 
character ; ) and for the most part it signifies 
true virtue, or virtue in such a sense as distin- 
guishes it from all false appearances of virtue, or 
what is only virtue in some respects, but not j 
truly so in the sight of God. It is used at least 
eighty times in this sense ; and scarce any word 
can be found in the Hebrew language more signi- 
ficant of this. It is thus used constantly in 
Solomon's writings, (where it is often found,) j 
when used to express a character or property of ! 
moral agents. And it is beyond all controversy > 
that he uses it in this place (the seventh of , 
Eccles.) to signify moral rectitude, or a character 
of real virtue and integrity. For the wise man 
is speaking of persons with respect to their 
moral character, inquiring into the corruption 



[PART H. 

and depravity of mankind, (as is confessed by 
Dr. T.,) and he here declares he had not found 
one among a thousand of the right stamp, truly 
and thoroughly virtuous and upright; which 
appeared a strange thing ! But in this text he 
clears God, and lays the blame on man : man was 
not made thus at first. He was made of the 
right stamp, altogether good in his kind, (as all 
other things were,) truly and thoroughly virtuous, 
as he ought to be ; 'but they have sought out many 
inventions;' which last expression signifies things 
sinful, or morally evil; (as is confessed, p. 185.) 
And this expression, used to signify those moral 
evils he found in man, which he sets in opposi- 
tion to the uprightness man was made in, shows 
that by uprightness he means the most true and 
sincere goodness. The word rendered inventions, 
most naturally and aptly signifies the subtle 
devices, and crooked, deceitful ways of hypo- 
crites, wherein they are of a character contrary 
to men of simplicity and godly sincerity, who, 
though wise in that which is good, are simple 
concerning evil. Thus the same wise man, in 
Prov. xii. 6, sets a truly good man in opposition 
to a man of wicked devices, whom God will con- 
demn. Solomon had occasion to observe many 
who put on an artful disguise and fair show of good- 
ness ; but on searching thoroughly, he found very 
few truly upright. As he says, Prov. xx. 6, 
'Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness; 
but a faithful man ivho can find ?' So that it is 
exceeding plain, that by uprightness, in this 
place, Eccles. vii., Solomon means true moral 
goodness." — Original Sin. 

There is also an express allusion to the moral 
image of God, in which man was at first created, 
in Col. iii. 10 : "And have put on the new man, 
which is renewed in knowledge after the image 
of Him that created him;" and in Eph. iv. 
24: "Put on the new man, which after God is 
created in righteousness and true holiness." 
In these passages the apostle represents the 
change produced in true Christians by the gos- 
pel, as a " renewal" of the image of God in 
man ; as a new or second creation in that image ; 
and he explicitly declares, that that image con- 
sists in "knowledge," in " righteousness," and 
in "true holiness." The import of these terms 
shall be just now considered ; but it is here 
sufficient that they contain the doctrine of a 
creation of man in the image of the moral per- 
fections of his Maker. 

This also may be finally argued from the 
satisfaction with which the historian of the 
creation represents the Creator as viewing the 
works of his hands as " very good." This is 
pronounced with reference to each individually, 
as well as to the whole. "And God saw every 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



367 



thing that he had made, and behold it was very- 
good. " But, as to man, this goodness must 
necessarily imply moral as well as physical quali- 
ties. Without them he would have been im- 
perfect as man; and had they existed in him, in 
their first exercises, perverted and sinful, he 
must have been an exception, and could not have 
been pronounced "very good." The goodness 
of man, as a rational being, must lie in a de- 
votedness and consecration to God ; consequent- 
ly, man was at first devoted to God, otherwise he 
was not good. A rational creature, as such, is 
capable of knowing, loving, serving, and living 
in communion with the Most Holy One. Adam, 
at first, did or did not use this capacity ; if he 
did not, he was not very good, nor good at all. 

As to the degree of moral perfection in the 
first man, much scope has been given, in de- 
scribing it, to a warm imagination, and to much 
rhetorical embellishment; and Adam's perfec- 
tion has sometimes been placed at an elevation 
which renders it exceedingly difficult to conceive 
how he should fall into sin at all ; and espe- 
cially how he should fall so soon as seems to be 
represented in the narrative of Moses. On the 
other hand, those who either deny or hold very 
slightly the doctrine of our hereditary depra- 
vity, delight to represent Adam as little, if at 
all, superior in moral perfection and capability 
to his descendants. But, if we attend to the 
passages of holy writ above quoted, we shall 
be able, on this subject, to ascertain, if not the 
exact degree of his moral endowments, yet 
that there is a certain standard below which he 
could not be placed, in the perfection of his 
moral endowments. Generally, he was made in 
the image of God, which we have already proved 
is to be understood morally as well as naturally. 
Now, however the image of any thing may 
be reduced in extent, it must still be an accu- 
rate representation as far as it goes. Every 
thing good in the creation must always be a 
miniature representation of the excellence of 
the Creator; but, in this case, the "goodness," 
that is, the perfection of every creature, accord- 
ing to the part it was designed to act in the 
general assemblage of beings collected into our 
system, wholly forbids us to suppose that the 
image of Cod's moral perfections in man was a 
blurred and dim representation. To whatever 
extent it went, it necessarily excluded all that 
from man which did not resemble God : it was a 
Kkene8B to God in "righteousness and true holi- 
wli.it.-vr the degree of each might be, 
which excluded :ill admixture of unrighteous- 
and unholiness. The Bret part of our con- 
on, therefore, is, that man, in his original 
Htate, was 8tnle8«, both in act and in principle. 



"God made man upright." That this signifies 
moral rectitude has been already established; 
but the import of the word is very extensive. 
It expresses, by an easy figure, the exactness of 
truth, justice, and obedience ; and it compre- 
hends the state and habit both of the heart and 
the life. Such, then, was the state of primitive 
man : there was no obliquity of his moral prin- 
ciples, his mind and affections ; none in his 
conduct. He was perfectly sincere and exactly 
just, rendering from the heart all that was due 
to God and to the creature. Tried by the 
exactest plummet, he was upright ; by the most 
perfect rule, he was straight. 

The "knowledge" in which the Apostle Paul, 
in the passage quoted above from Coloss. iii. 
10, places " the image of God" after which man 
was created, does not merely imply the faculty 
of the understanding, which is a part of the 
natural image of God ; but that which might be 
lost, because it is that in which the new man 
is "renewed." It is, therefore, to be understood 
of the faculty of knowledge in the right exer- 
cise of its original power ; and of that willing 
reception, and firm retaining, and hearty ap- 
proval of religious truth, in which knowledge, 
when spoken of morally, is always understood 
in the Scriptures. We may not be disposed to 
allow, with some, that he understood the deep 
philosophy of nature, and could comprehend 
and explain the sublime mysteries of religion. 
The circumstance of his giving names to the 
animals is certainly no sufficient proof of his 
having attained to a philosophical acquaintance 
with their qualities and distinguishing habits, 
though we should allow the names to be still 
retained in the Hebrew, and to be as expressive 
of their peculiarities as some expositors have 
stated. No sufficient time appears to have been 
afforded him for the study of their properties, 
as this event took place previous to the forma- 
tion of Eve ; and as for the notion of his acquir- 
ing knowledge by intuition, it is contradicted by 
the revealed fact, that angels themselves acquire 
their knowledge by observation and study, 
though, no doubt, with greater rapidity and 
certainty than we. The whole of the transaction 
was supernatural: the beasts were "brought" 
to Adam, and it is probable that he named them 
under a Divine impulse. He has been supposed 
to be the inventor of language, but the history 
shows that he was never without language. 
He was from the first ablo to converse v\ith 
God; and we may, therefore, inter thai lan- 
guage was in him a supernatural and miraculous 
endowment. That his understanding was, as to 
its capacity, deep and large beyond any of his 
posterity, must follow from the perfection in 



368 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



"which he was created, and his acquisitions of 
knowledge would, therefore, be rapid and easy. 
It was, however, in moral and religious truth, 
as being of the first concern to him, that we are 
to suppose the excellency of his knowledge to 
have consisted. "His reason would be clear, 
his judgment uncorrupted, and his conscience 
upright and sensible." (Watts.) The best 
knowledge would, in him, be placed first, and 
that of every other kind be made subservient 
to it, according to its relation to that. The 
apostle adds to knowledge, "righteousness and 
true holiness" — terms which express not merely 
freedom from sin, but positive and active 
virtues. 

"A rational creature thus made, must not only 
be innocent and free, but must be formed holy. 
His will must have an inward bias to virtue : 
he must have an inclination to please that God 
who made him ; a supreme love to his Creator, 
a zeal to serve him, and a tender fear of offend- 
ing him. 

"For either the new created man loved God 
supremely, or not. If he did not, he was not 
innocent, since the law of nature requires a 
supreme love to God. If he did, he stood ready 
for every act of obedience ; and this is true 
holiness of heart. And, indeed, without this, 
how could a God of holiness love the work of his 
own hands ? 

"There must be also in this creature a re- 
gular subjection of the inferior powers to the 
superior sense, and appetite and passion must 
be subject to reason. The mind must have a 
power to govern these lower faculties, that he 
might not offend against the law of his creation. 

"He must also have his heart inlaid with 
love to the creatures, especially those of his 
own species, if he should be placed among them ; 
and with a principle of honesty and truth in 
dealing with them. And if many of those crea- 
tures were made at once, there would be no 
pride, malice, or envy, no falsehood, no brawls 
or contentions among them, but all harmony and 
love."— Dr. "Watts. 

Sober as these views are of man's primitive 
state, it is not, perhaps, possible for us fully 
to conceive of so exalted a condition as even 
this. Below this standard it could not fall; 
and that it implied a glory, and dignity, and 
moral greatness of a very exalted kind, is made 
sufficiently apparent from the degree of guilt 
charged upon Adam when he fell ; for the aggra- 
vating circumstances of his offence may well be 
deduced from the tremendous consequences which 
followed. 

The creation of man in the moral image of 
God being so clearly stated in the Scriptures, 



[part II. 

it would be difficult to conceive in what manner 
their testimony, in this point, could be evaded, 
did we not know the readiness with which 
some minds form objections, and how little in- 
genuity is required to make objections plau- 
sible. The objection to this clearly revealed 
truth is thus stated by Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, 
and it has been followed in substance, and with 
only some variation of phrase, by the Socinians 
of the present day. "Adam could not be origin- 
ally created in righteousness and true holiness : 
because habits of holiness cannot be created 
without our knowledge, concurrence, or con- 
sent; for holiness in its nature implies the 
choice and consent of a moral agent, without 
which it cannot be holiness." If, however, it 
has been established that God made man upright: 
that he was created in "knowledge," "right- 
eousness," and "true holiness;" and that at his 
creation he was pronounced very good; all this 
falls to the ground, and is the vain reasoning of 
man against the explicit testimony of God. The 
fallacy is, however, easily detected. It lies in 
confounding "habits of holiness" with the prin- 
ciple of holiness. Now, though habit is the 
result of acts, and acts of voluntary choice, 
yet if the choice be a right one — and right it 
must be in order to an act of holiness — and if 
this right choice, frequently exerted, produces 
so many acts as shall form what is called a habit, 
then either the principle from which that right 
choice arises must be good or bad, or neither. 
If neither, a right choice has no cause at all ; if 
bad, a right choice could not originate from it ; 
if good, then there may be a holy principle in 
man, a right nature before choice, and so that 
part of the argument falls to the ground. Now, 
in Adam, that rectitude of principle from which 
a right choice and right acts flowed, was 
either created with him or formed by his own 
volitions. If the latter be affirmed, then he 
must have willed right before he had a prin- 
ciple of rectitude, which is absurd ; if the for- 
mer, then his creation in a state of moral rec- 
titude, with an aptitude and disposition to good, 
is established. 

Mr. Wesley thus answers the objection : — 
" What is holiness ? Is it not essentially love ? 
the love of God and of all mankind? love pro- 
ducing 'bowels of mercies,' humbleness of 
mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering ? And 
cannot God shed abroad this love in any soul, 
without his concurrence ? antecedent to his 
knowledge or consent? And supposing this to 
be done, will love change its nature ? Will it be 
no longer holiness ? This argument can never 
be sustained ; unless you would play with the 
word habits. Love is holiness wherever it exists. 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY 



369 



And God could create either men or angels, 
endued from the very first moment of their exist- 
ence with whatsoever degree of love he pleased. 
"You 'think, on the contrary, it is demonstra- 
tion, that we cannot be righteous or holy, we 
cannot observe what is right, without our own free 
and explicit choice.' I suppose you mean prac- 
tice what is right. But a man may be righteous 
before he does what is right, holy in heart before 
he is holy in life. The confounding these two 
all along, seems the ground of your strange im- 
agination that Adam 'must choose to be righte- 
ous, must exercise thought and reflection before 
he could be righteous.' Why so ? ' Because 
righteousness is the right use and application of 
our powers.' Here is your capital mistake. No, 
it is not — it is the right state of our powers. It 
is the right disposition of our soul, the right tem- 
per of our mind. Take this with you, and you 
will no more dream that ' God could not create 
man in righteousness and true holiness.'" — 
Original Sin. 
President Edwards's answer is : — 
"I think it a contradiction to the nature of 
things, as judged of by the common sense of 
mankind. It is agreeable to the sense of men, 
in all nations and ages, not only that the fruit or 
effect of a good choice is virtuous, but that the 
good choice itself, from whence that effect pro- 
ceeds, is so ; yea, also the antecedent food, dis- 
position, temper, or affection of mind, from 
whence proceeds that good choice is virtuous. 
This is the general notion — not that principles 
derive their goodness from actions, but that 
actions derive their goodness from the principles 
whence they proceed ; so that the act of choos- 
ing what is good is no further virtuous than it 
proceeds from a good principle or virtuous dis- 
position of mind. Which supposes that a virtu- 
ous disposition of mind may be before a virtuous 
act of choice ; and that, therefore, it is not ne- 
cessary there should first be thought, reflection, 
and choice, before there can be any virtuous dis- 
position. If the choice be first, before the exist- 
ence of a good disposition of heart, what is the 
character of that choice ? There can, according 
to our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice 
which proceeds from no virtuous principle, but 
from mere self-love, ambition, or some animal 
appetites ; therefore, a virtuous temper of mind 
may bo before a good act of choice, as a tree 
may be before the fruit, and the fountain before 
the stream which proceeds from it." — Original 
Sin. 

The final cause of man's creation was the dis- 
play of the glory of God, and principally of his 
moral perfections. Among these, bcnevolenco 
shone with eminent lustre. The creation of 
24 



rational and holy creatures was the only means, 
as it appears to us, of accomplishing that most 
paternal and benevolent design, to impart to 
other beings a portion of the Divine felicity. 
The happiness of God is the result of his moral 
perfection, and it is complete and perfect. It is 
also specific : it is the felicity of knowledge, of 
conscious rectitude, of sufficiency, and independ- 
ence. Of the two former, creatures were capa- 
ble ; but only rational creatures. Matter, however 
formed, is unconscious, and is, and must for ever 
remain, ' incapable of happiness. However dis- 
posed and adorned, it was made for another, and 
not at all with reference to itself. If it be curi- 
ously wrought, it is for some other's wonder ; if 
it has use, it is for another's convenience ; if it 
has beauty, it is for another's eye ; if harmony, 
it is for another's ear. Irrational animate crea- 
tures may derive advantage from mere matter ; 
but it does not appear that they are conscious of 
it. They have the enjoyment of sense, but not 
the powers of reflection, comparison, and taste. 
They see without admiration, they combine no- 
thing into relations. So to know, as to be con- 
scious of knowing, and to feel the pleasures of 
knowledge ; so to know, as to impart knowledge 
to others; so to know, as to lay the basis of 
future and enlarging knowledge, as to discover 
the efficient and the final causes of things ; and 
to enjoy the pleasures of discovery and certainty 
of imagination and taste — this is peculiar to 
rational beings. Above all, to know the great 
Creator and Lord of all : to see the distinctions 
of right and wrong, of good and evil in his law ; 
to have, therefore, the consciousness of integrity 
and of well-ordered and perfectly balanced pas- 
sions : to feel the felicity of universal and un- 
bounded benevolence: to be conscious of the 
favor of God himself; to have perfect confidence 
in his care and constant benediction ; to adore 
him ; to be grateful ; to exert hope without limit 
on future and unceasing blessings : all these 
sources of felicity were added to the pleasures 
of intellect and imagination in the creation of 
rational beings. In whatever part of the uni- 
verse they were created and placed, we have 
sufficient reason to believe that this was the 
primitive condition of all ; and we know, assur- 
edly, from God's own revelation, that it was the 
condition of man. In his creation and primeval 
condition, the "kindness and lovo of God" emi- 
nently appeared. He was made a rational and 
immortal spirit, with no limits to the constant 
enlargement of his powers; for, from nil the 
evidence that our own consciousness, even iu our 
fallen state, affords us, it appoars possible to the 
human soul to bo eternally approaching the Infi- 
nite in intellectual strength and attainment. Ho 



370 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



was made holy and happy : he was admitted to 
intercourse with God. He was not left alone, 
but had the pleasure of society. He was placed 
in a world of grandeur, harmony, beauty, and 
utility: it was canopied with other distant 
worlds to exhibit to his very sense a manifesta- 
tion of the extent of space and the vastness of 
the varied universe ; and to call both his reason, 
his fancy, and his devotion, into their most 
vigorous and salutary exercises. He was placed 
in a paradise, where, probably, all that was sub- 
lime and gentle in the scenery of the whole earth 
was exhibited in pattern; and all that could de- 
light the innocent sense, and excite the curious 
inquiries of the mind, was spread before him. 
He had labor to employ his attention, without 
wearying him ; and time for his highest pursuits 
of knowing God, his will, and his works. All 
was a manifestation of universal love, of which 
he was the chief visible object ; and the felicity 
and glory of his condition must, by his and their 
obedience in succession, have descended to his 
posterity for ever. Such was our world, and its 
rational inhabitants, the first pair ; and thus did 
its creation manifest, not only the power and 
wisdom, but the benevolence of Deity. He made 
them like himself, and he made them capable of 
a happiness like his own. 

The case of man is now so obviously different, 
that the change cannot be denied. The scrip- 
tural method of accounting for this is the dis- 
obedience of our first parents ; and the visitation 
of their sin upon their posterity, in the altered 
condition of the material world, in the corrupt 
moral state in which men are born, and in that 
afflictive condition which is universally imposed 
upon them. The testimony of the sacred writings 
to what is called, in theological language, the 
Fall of Man, 1 is, therefore, to be next con- 
sidered. 

The Mosaic account of this event is, that a 
garden having been planted by the Creator, for 
the use of man, he was placed in it, " to dress it, 
and to keep it;" that in this garden two trees 
were specially distinguished, one as "the tree 
of life," the other as "the tree of the knowledge 
of good and evil ;" that from eating of the latter, 
Adam was restrained by positive interdict, and 
by the penalty, "In the day thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die;" that the serpent, who 
was more subtle than any beast of the field, 
tempted the woman to eat, by denying that death 
would be the consequence, and by assuring her 
that her eyes and her husband's eyes "would be 

1 This phrase does not occur in the canonical Scriptures ; 
but is, probably, taken from Wisdom x. 1: " She preserved 
the first formed father of the world that was created, and 
brought him out of his fall." 



[PART II. 

opened," and that they would "be as gods, know- 
ing good and evil;" that the woman took of the 
fruit, gave of it to her husband, who also ate ; 
that for this act of disobedience they were ex- 
pelled from the garden, made subject to death, 
and laid under other maledictions. 

That this history should be the subject of much 
criticism, not only by infidels, whose objections 
to it have been noticed in the first part of this 
work, but by those who hold false and perverted 
views of the Christian system, was to be ex- 
pected. Taken in its natural and obvious sense, 
along with the comments of the subsequent 
scriptures, it teaches the doctrines of the exist- 
ence of an evil, tempting, invisible spirit, going 
about seeking whom he may deceive and devour ; 
of the introduction of a state of moral corrupt- 
ness into human nature, which has been trans- 
mitted to all men ; and of a vicarious atonement 
for sin ; and wherever the fundamental truths of 
the Christian system are denied, attempts will be 
made so to interpret this part of the Mosaic 
history as to obscure the testimony which it gives 
to them, either explicitly, or by just induction. 
Interpreters of this account of the lapse of the 
first pair, and the origin of evil, as to the human 
race, have adopted various and often strange 
theories ; but those whose opinions it seems ne- 
cessary to notice may be divided into those 
who deny the literal sense of the relation en- 
tirely ; those who take the account to be in part 
literal and in part allegorical; and those who, 
while they contend earnestly for the literal inter- 
pretation of every part of the history, consider 
some of the terms used, and some of the persons 
introduced, as conveying a meaning more exten- 
sive than the letter, and as constituting several 
symbols of spiritual things and of spiritual 



Those who have denied the literal sense en- 
tirely, and regard the whole relation as an in- 
structive mythos or fable, have, as might be 
expected, when all restraint of authority was 
thus thrown off from the imagination, adopted 
very different interpretations. Thus, we have 
been taught that this account was intended to 
teach the evil of yielding to the violence of appe- 
tite, and to its control over reason ; or the intro- 
duction of vice in conjunction with knowledge 
and the artificial refinements of society ; or the 
necessity of keeping the great mass of mankind 
from acquiring too great a degree of knowledge, 
as being hurtful to society ; or as another ver- 
sion of the story of the golden age, and its being 
succeeded by times more vicious and miserable ; 
or as designed, enigmatically, to account for the 
origin of evil, or of mankind. This catalogue of 
opinions might be much enlarged : some of them 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



371 



have been held by mere visionaries ; others by 
men of learning, especially by several of the 
semi-infidel theologians and biblical critics of 
Germany; and our own country has not been 
exempt from this class of free expositors. How 
to fix upon the moral of "the fable" is, how- 
ever, the difficulty ; and this variety of opinion 
is a sufficient refutation of the general notion 
assumed by the whole class, since scarcely can 
two of them be found who adopt the same inter- 
pretation, after they have discarded the literal 
acceptation. 

But that the account of Moses is to be taken 
as a matter of real history, and according to its 
literal import, is established by two considera- 
tions, against whicli, as being facts, nothing can 
successfully be urged. The first is, that the ac- 
count of the fall of the first pair is a part of a 
continuous history. The creation of the world, 
of man, of woman ; the planting of the garden 
of Eden, and the placing of man there ; the 
duties and prohibitions laid upon him ; his dis- 
obedience ; his expulsion from the garden ; the 
subsequent birth of his children, their lives and 
actions, and those of their posterity, down to the 
flood, and, from that event, to the life of Abra- 
ham, are given in the same plain and unadorned 
narrative, brief, but yet simple, and with no in- 
timation at all, either from the elevation of the 
style or otherwise, that a fable or allegory is in 
any part introduced. If this, then, be the case, 
and the evidence of it lies upon the very face of 
the history, it is clear, that if the account of the 
fall be excerpted from the whole narrative as 
allegorical, any subsequent part, from Abel to 
Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to 
Moses, may be excerpted for the same reason, 
which is neither more nor less than this, that it 
does not agree with the theological opinions of 
the interpreter ; and thus the whole of the Pen- 
tateuch may be rejected as a history, and con- 
verted into fable. One of these consequences 
must, therefore, follow, either that the account 
of the fall must be taken as history, or the his- 
torical character of the whole five books of 
Moses must be unsettled; and if none but in- 
fidels will go to the latter consequence, then no 
one who admits the Pentateuch to be a true his- 
tory generally, can consistently refuse to admit 
the story of the fall of the first pair to be a nar- 
rative of real events, because it is written in the 
same style, and presents the same character of a 
continuous record of events. So conclusive has 
this argument been felt, that the anti-literal in- 
terpreters have endcavorod to evade it, by assert- 
ing that the part of the history of Moses in < ( mo- 
tion bears marks of being a separate fragment, 
more ancient than the Pentateuch itself, and 



transcribed into it by Moses, the author and com- 
piler of the whole. This point is examined and 
satisfactorily refuted in the learned and excellent 
work referred to below ; x but it is easy to show 
that it would amount to nothing, if granted, in 
the mind of any who is satisfied on the pre- 
vious question of the inspiration of the Holy 
Scriptures. For let it be admitted that 
Moses, in writing the Pentateuchal history, 
availed himself of the traditions of the pa- 
triarchal ages — a supposition not in the least 
inconsistent with his inspiration or with the ab- 
solute truth of his history, since the traditions 
so introduced have been authenticated by the 
Holy Spirit; or let it be supposed, which is 
wholly gratuitous, that he made use of previously 
existing documents ; and that some differences 
of style in his books may be traced, which serve 
to point out his quotations, which also is an as- 
sumption, or rather a position, which some of 
the best Hebraists have denied ; yet two things 
are to be noted : first, that the inspired character 
of the books of Moses is authenticated by our 
Lord and his apostles, so that they must neces- 
sarily be wholly true, and free from real contra- 
dictions ; and, secondly, that to make it any 
thing to their purpose who contend that the ac- 
count of the fall is an older document, introduced 
by Moses, it ought to be shown that it is not 
written as truly in the narrative style, even if it 
could be proved to be in some respects a different 
style, as that which precedes and follows it. Now 
the very literal character of our translation will 
enable even the unlearned reader to discover 
this. Whether it be an embodied tradition or 
the insertion of a more ancient document, (though 
there is no foundation at all for the latter sup- 
position,) it is obviously a narrative, and a narra- 
tive as simple as any which precedes or follows 
it. 

The other indisputable fact to which I just now 
adverted, as establishing the literal sense of the 
history, is that, as such, it is referred to and 
reasoned upon in various parts of Scripture. 

Job xx. 4, 5 : " Knowest thou not this of old, 
since man was placed upon earth, that the tri- 
umphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of 
the hypocrite but for a moment ?" The first part 
of the quotation "might as well have been ren- 
dered, 'since Adam was placed on the earth.' 
There is no reason to doubt that this passage 
refers to the fall and the first sin of man. The 
date agrees, for the knowledge here taught is 
said to ariso from facts as old as the first placing 



i Hoi/den's Dissertation on the Fall of Man. chap. ii. 
lii this volume the literal sens,- of the Mosaic account of 
the fall is largely investigated ami ablj established. 



372 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



of man upon earth, and the sudden punishment 
of the iniquity corresponds to the Mosaic ac- 
count. — ' the triumphing of the wicked is short, 
his joy but for a moment.' " — Sherlock on Pro- 
phecy. 

Job xxxi. 33 : "If I covered my transgression 
as Adam, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom." 
Magee renders the verse : 

" Did I cover, like Adam, my transgression, 
By hiding in a lnrking-place mine iniquity ?•'' 

and adds, "I agree with Peters, that this con- 
tains a reference to the history of the first man, 
and his endeavors to hide himself after his trans- 
gression." — Discourses on the Atonement. Our 
margin reads, "after the manner of men;" and 
also the old versions ; but the Chaldee paraphrase 
agrees with our translation, which is also satis- 
factorily defended by numerous critics. 

Job xv. 14: '-What is man, that he should be 
Clean ; and he which is born of a woman, that he 
should be righteous?" Why not clean? Did God 
make woman or man unclean at the beginning ? 
If he did, the expostulation would have been 
more apposite, and much stronger, had the true 
cause been assigned, and Job had said, -How 
canst thou expect cleanness in man, whom thou ! 
createdst unclean ?" But, as the case now stands, 
the expostulation has a plain reference to the in- j 
troduction of vanity and corruption by the sin 
of the woman, and is an evidence that this an- ! 
cient writer was sensible of the evil consequences 
of the. fall upon the whole race of man. "Eden" ' 
and " the garden of the Lord" are also frequently 
referred to in the prophets. We have the "tree 
of life" mentioned several times in the Proverbs 
and in the Revelation. "God," says Solomon, 
"made man upright." The enemies of Christ 
and his Church are spoken of, both in the Old 
and New Testaments, under the names of "the 
serpent" and "the dragon;" and the habit of the 
serpent to lick the dust is also referred to by 
Isaiah. 

If the history of the fall, as recorded by Moses, 
were an allegory, or any thing but a literal his- 
tory, several of the above allusions would have 
no meaning ; but the matter is put beyond all 
possible doubt in the Xew Testament, unless the j 
same culpable liberties be taken with the inter- 
pretation of the words of our Lord and of St. 
Paul as with those of the Jewish lawgiver. Our 
Lord says, Matt. xix. 4, 5, "Have ye not read, 
that he which made them at the beginning, made 
them male and female : and said, For this cause 
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall 
cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one 
fle;li?" This is an argument on the subject of 
divorces, and its foundation rests upon two of the 



facts recorded by Moses : 1. That God made at 
first but two human beings, from whom all the 
rest have sprung. 2. That the intimacy and in- 
dissolubility of the marriage relation rests upon 
the formation of the woman from the man ; for 
our Lord quotes the words in Genesis, where the 
obligation of man to cleave to his wife is imme- 
diately connected with that circumstance. "And 
Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and 
flesh of my flesh : she shall be called woman, be- 
cause she was taken out of man. Therefore 
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and 
shall cleave unto his wife ; and they shall be one 
flesh." This is sufficiently in proof that both 
our Lord and the Pharisees considered this early 
part of the history of Moses as a narrative ; for, 
otherwise, it would neither have been a reason, 
on his part, for the doctrine which he was incul- 
cating, nor have had any force of conviction as 
to them. "In Adam," says the Apostle Paul, 
"all die:" "'by one man sin entered into the 
world." "But I fear lest by any means, as the 
serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so 
your minds should be corrupted from the sim- 
plicity that is in Christ." In the last passage, 
the instrument of the temptation is said to be a 
serpent, (opic.) which is a sufficient answer to 
those who would make it any other animal ; and 
Eve is represented as being first seduced, accord- 
ing to the account in Genesis. This St. Paul 
repeats, in 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14: "Adam was first 
formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, 
(first, or immediately.) but the woman being de- 
ceived was in the transgression." And offers 
this as the reason of his injunction, "Let the 
woman learn in silence, with all subjection." 
When, therefore, it is considered that these pas- 
sages are introduced, not for rhetorical illustra- 
tion, or in the way of classical quotation, but are 
made the basis of grave and important reason- 
ings, which embody some of the most important 
doctrines of the Christian revelation, and of im- 
portant social duties and points of Christian order 
and decorum, it would be to charge the writers 
of the Xew Testament with the grossest absurd- 
ity, with even culpable and unworthy trifling, to 
suppose them to argue from the history of the 
fall as a narrative, when they knew it to be an 
allegory ; and if we are, therefore, compelled to 
allow that it was understood as a real history by 
our Lord and his inspired apostles, those specu- 
lations of modern critics, which convert it into a 
parable, stand branded with their true character 
of infidel and semi-infidel temerity. 

The objections which are made to the histori- 
cal character of this account are either those of 
open unbelievers and scoffers, or such as are 
founded precisely upon the same allegations of 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



373 



supposed absurdity and unsuitableness to which 
such persons resort, and which suppose that man 
is a competent judge of the proceedings of his 
Maker, and that the latter ought to regulate his 
conduct and requirements by what the former 
may think fit or unfit. If the literal interpreta- 
tion of the first chapter in Genesis could be 
proved inconsistent with other parts of holy 
writ, then, indeed, we should be compelled to 
adopt the mode of explanation by allegory ; but 
if no reason more weighty can be offered for so 
violent a proceeding than that men either object 
to the doctrines which the literal account in- 
cludes, or that the recorded account of the 
actual dealings of God with the first man does 
not comport with their notions of what was fit 
in such circumstances, we should hold truth with 
little tenacity were we to surrender it to the 
enemy upon such a summons. The fallacy of 
most of these objections is, however, easily 
pointed out. We are asked, first, whether it is 
reasonable to suppose that the fruit of the tree 
of life could confer immortality ? But what is 
there irrational in supposing that, though Adam 
was made exempt from death, yet that the fruit 
of a tree should be the appointed instrument of 
preserving his health, repairing the wastes of 
his animal nature, and of maintaining him in 
perpetual youth ? Almighty God could have ac- 
complished this end without means, or by other 
means ; but since he so often employs instru- 
ments, it is not more strange that he should or- 
dain to preserve Adam permanently from death 
by food of a special quality, than that now he 
should preserve men in health and life, for three- 
score years and ten, by specific foods ; and that, 
to counteract disorders, he should have given 
specific medicinal qualities to herbs and minerals ; 
or if, with some, we regard the eating of the tree 
of life as a sacramental act, an expression of 
faith in the promise of continued preservation, 
and a means through which the conserving in- 
fluence of God was bestowed, a notion, however, 
not so well founded as the other, it is yet not in- 
consistent with the literal interpretation, and 
involves no really unreasonable consequence, and 
nothing directly contrary to the analogy of faith. 
It has been, also, foolishly enough asked whether 
the fruit of the prohibited tree, or of any tree, 
can be supposed to have communicated "know- 
ledge of good and evil," or have had any effect 
at all upon the intellectual powers ? But this is 
not tho idea conveyed by the history, howevor 
literally taken, and tho objection is groundless. 
That tree might surely, without tho least ap- 
proach to allegory, bo called "the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil," whether we under* 
etand by this, that by eating it man came to 



know, by sad experience, the value of the "good" 
he had forfeited, and the bitterness of "evil," 
which he had before known only in name ; or, as 
others have understood it, that it was appointed 
to be the test of Adam's fidelity to his Creator, 
and, consequently, was a tree of the knowledge 
of good and evil, a tree for the purpose of know- 
ing (or making known) whether he would cleave 
to the former, or make choice of the latter. The 
first of these interpretations is, I think, to be 
preferred, because it better harmonizes with the 
whole history ; but either of them is consistent 
with a literal interpretation, and cannot be proved 
to involve any real absurdity. 

To the account of the serpent it has been ob- 
jected that, taken literally, it makes the invisible 
tempter assume the body of an animal to carry 
on his designs ; but we must be better acquainted 
with the nature and laws of disembodied spirits 
before we can prove this to be impossible, or 
even unlikely ; and as for an animal being chosen 
as the means of approach to Eve, without excit- 
ing suspicion, it is manifest that, allowing a su- 
perior spirit to be the real -tempter, it was good 
policy in him to address Eve through an animal 
which she must have noticed as one of the in- 
habitants of the garden, rather than in a human 
form, when she knew that herself and her hus- 
band were the only human beings as yet in ex- 
istence. The presence of such a stranger would 
have been much more likely to put her on her 
guard. But then we are told that the animal 
was a contemptible reptile. Certainly not before 
he was degraded in form ; but, on the contrary, 
one of the "beasts of the earth," and not a 
" creeping thing ;" and also more " subtle," more 
discerning and sagacious, "than any beast of the 
field which the Lord God had made" — conse- 
quently the head of all the inferior animals in 
intellect, and not unlikely to have been of a cor- 
responding noble and beautiful form; for this, 
indeed, his bodily degradation imports. 1 If there 
was policy, then, in Satan's choosing an animal 
as the instrument by which he might make his 
approaches, there was as much good taste in his 
selection as the allegorists, who seem anxious on 
this point, can wish for him. The speaking of 
the serpent is another stumbling-block ; but as 
the argument is not here with an infidel, but 
with those who profess to receive the Mosaic re- 
cord as Divine, the speaking of tho serpent is no 



1 We havo no roason at all to suppose, as it is strangely 
dono almost uniformly by commentators, thai this animal 
had tho serpentine form in any mode or degree at all be- 
fore his transformation. That he was then degraded to a 
reptile, to go "upon his belly," imports, on the contrary, 

an entire alteration ami loss of the original form — a form 
of Which it is clear no idea ran now be eonceivod. 



374 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



more a reason for interpreting the relation alle- 
gorically, than the speaking of the ass of Balaam 
can be for allegorizing the whole of that transac- 
tion. That a good or an evil spirit has no power 
to produce articulate sounds from the organs of 
an animal, no philosophy can prove, and it is a 
fact which is, therefore, capable of being ration- 
ally substantiated by testimony. There is a clear 
reason, too, for this use of the power of Satan in 
the story itself. By his giving speech to the ser- 
pent, and representing that, as appears from the 
account, as a consequence of the serpent having 
himself eaten of the fruit, 1 he took the most 
effectual means of impressing Eve with the dan- 
gerous and fatal notion, that the prohibition of 
the tree of knowledge was a restraint upon her 
happiness and intellectual improvement, and thus 
to suggest hard thoughts of her Maker. The ob- 
jection that Eve manifested no surprise when she 
heard an animal speak, whom she must have 
known not to have had that faculty before, has 
also no weight, since that circumstance might have 
occurred without being mentioned in so brief a 
history. It is still more likely that Adam should 
have expressed some marks of surprise and anxi- 
ety too, when his wife presented the fruit to him, 
though nothing of the kind is mentioned. But 
allowing that no surprise was indicated by the 
woman, the answer of the author just quoted is 
satisfactory : 

"In such a state, reason must enjoy a calm 
dominion ; and consequently there was no room 
for those sudden starts of imagination, or those 
sudden tumults, agitations, failures, and stagna- 
tions of the blood and spirits now incident to 
human nature ; and therefore Eve was incapable 
of fear or surprise from such accidents as would 
disquiet the best of her posterity. This objec- 
tion then is so far from prejudicing the truth of 
the Mosaic history, that to me I own it a strong 
presumption in its favor. 

" But after all, if this objection has any weight 
with any one, let him consider what there is in 



l " 'And when the woman saw that the tree was good 
for food,' etc. Now Eve could plainly know, hy her senses, 
that the fruit was desirable to the eye, hut it was impos- 
sible she could know that it was good for food, but from 
the example and experiment of the serpent. It was also 
impossible she could know that it was desirable to make 
use of it, but by the example of the serpent, whom she 
saw from a brute become a rational and vocal creature, as 
she thought by eating that fruit. The text says she saw 
it was good for food, and that it was desirable to make 
wise ; and seeing does not imply conjecture or belief, but 
certain knowledge — knowledge founded upon evidence 
and proof — such proof as she had then before her eyes. 
And when once we are sure that she had this proof, as it is 
evident she had, the whole conference between her and 
the serpent is as rational and intelligible as any thing in 
the whole Scriptures." — Delant's Dissertations. 



[PART n. 

this philosophic serenity of our first parent, sup- 
posing the whole of her conduct on this occasion 
fully related to us, so far exceeding the serenity 
of Fabricius, upon the sudden appearance and 
cry of the elephant contrived by Pyrrhus to dis- 
compose him ; or the steadiness of Brutus upon 
the appearance of his evil genius ; and yet I be- 
lieve Plutarch no way suffers in his credit as a 
historian by the relation of those events ; at least, 
had he related those surprising accidents without 
saying one word of what effects they had upon 
the passions of the persons concerned, his rela- 
tions had certainly been liable to no imputation 
of incredibility or improbability upon that ac- 
count." — Revelation Examined. 

An objection is taken to the justice of the sen- 
tence pronounced on the serpent, if the transac- 
tion be accounted real, and if that animal were 
but the unconscious instrument of the great se- 
ducer. To this the reply is obvious, that it could 
be no matter of just complaint to the serpent 
that its form should be changed, and its species 
lowered in the scale of being. It had no original 
right to its former superior rank, but held it at 
the pleasure of the Creator. If special pain and 
sufferings had been inflicted upon the serpent, 
there would have been a semblance of plausibility 
in the objection; but the serpent suffered, as to 
liability to pain and death, no more than other 
animals, and was not therefore, any more than 
another irrational creature, accounted a respon- 
sible offender. Its degradation was evidently in- 
tended as a memento to man, and the real pun- 
ishment, as we shall show, fell upon the real 
transgressor who used the serpent as his instru- 
ment; while the enmity of the whole race of 
serpents to the human race, their cunning, and 
their poisonous qualities, appear to have been 
wisely and graciously intended as standing warn- 
ings to us to beware of that great spiritual enemy, 
who ever lies in wait to wound and to destroy. 

These are the principal objections made to the 
literal interpretation of this portion of the Mo- 
saic record, and we have seen that they are either 
of no weight in themselves, or that they cannot 
be entertained without leading to a total disre- 
gard of other parts of the inspired Scriptures. 
Tradition, too, comes in to the support of the 
literal sense, and on such a question has great 
weight. The apocryphal writings afford a satis- 
factory testimony of the sentiments of the Jews. 
2 Esdras iii. 4-7 : " Lord, thou barest rule, thou 
spakest at the beginning, when thou didst plant 
the earth, and that thyself alone, and command- 
edst the people ; and gavest a body to Adam with- 
out soul, which was the workmanship of thy 
hands, and didst breathe into him the breath of 
life, and he was made living before thee; and 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



375 



thou leddest him into paradise, which thy right 
hand had planted, and unto him thou gavest 
commandment to lore thy way, which he trans- 
gressed, and immediately thou appointedst death 
in him and in his generations, of whom came na- 
tions, tribes, people, and kindreds out of num- 
ber." 2 Esdras vii. 48: "0 thou Adam, what 
hast thou done ? for though it was thou that 
sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we are all 
that came of thee." Wisdom ii. 24 : " Neverthe- 
less, through envy of the Devil came death into 
the world." Wisdom x. 1: "She (wisdom) pre- 
served the first-formed father of the world, that 
was created alone, and brought him out of his 
fall." Ecclesiasticus xvii. 1, etc.: "The Lord 
created man of the earth, and turned him into it 
again. He gave them a few days and a short 
time, and also power over all things therein — he 
filled them with the knowledge of understanding, 
and showed them good and evil." By these an- 
cient Jewish writers it is, therefore, certain, that 
the account of the fall was understood as the nar- 
rative of a real transaction ; and, except on this 
assumption, it is impossible to account for those 
traditions which are embodied in the mythology 
of almost all pagan nations. Of these fables the 
basis must have been some fact, real or sup- 
posed ; for as well might we expect the fables of 
iEsop to have impressed themselves on the reli- 
gious ceremonies and belief of nations, as the 
Mosaic fable of man's fall ; for a mere fable it 
must be accounted, if it is to lose its literal in- 
terpretation. 

Popular convictions everywhere prevailed of 
the existence of some beings of the higher order, 
who had revolted from their subjection to the 
heavenly power which presided over the uni- 
verse ; and upon theni were raised many fabu- 
lous stories. It is probable that these convic- 
tions were originally founded on the circumstances 
referred to in Scripture with respect to Satan 
and his angels, as powerful malevolent beings, 
who, having first seduced Adam from his obedi- 
ence, incessantly labored to deceive, corrupt, and 
destroy his descendants. The notion of the magi 
of Plutarch, and of the Manicheans, concerning 
two independent principles, acting in opposition 
to each other, was also founded on the real cir- 
cumstances of the apostasy of angels, and of 
their interference and influence in the affairs of 
men. The fictions of Indian mythology with re- 
gard to contending powers, and their subordinate 
ministers, benevolent and malignant, were erected 
on the same basis of truth; and the Grecian and 
Ptoman accounts of the battles of the giants 
against Jupiter, were, perhaps, built on the cor- 
ruptions of tradition on this point. 

" The original temptation, by which Satan drew 



our first parents from their duty, and led them 
to transgress the only prohibition which God had 
imposed, is described in the first pages of Scrip- 
ture ; and it is repeated, under much disguise, 
in many fables of classical mythology. 

" Origen considers the allegorical relations fur- 
nished by Plato, with respect to Porus tempted 
by Penia to sin when intoxicated in the garden 
of Jove, as a disfigured history of the fall of man 
in paradise. It seems to have been blended with 
the story of Lot and his daughters. Plato might 
have acquired in Egypt the knowledge of the 
original circumstances of the fall, and have pro- 
duced them under the veil of allegory, that he 
might not offend the Greeks by a direct extract 
from the Jewish Scriptures. The heathen no- 
tions with respect to the Elysian fields, the gar- 
den of Adonis, and that of Hesperides, in which 
the fruit was watched by a serpent, were proba- 
bly borrowed from the sacred accounts, or from 
traditional reports with respect to paradise. 

"The worship established toward the evil 
spirit by his contrivance, sometimes under the 
very appearance in which he seduced our first 
parents, is to be found among the Phenicians 
and Egyptians. The general notion of the ser- 
pent as a mysterious symbol annexed to the 
heathen deities, and the invocation of Eve in 
the Bacchanalian orgies, (with the production 
of a serpent, consecrated as an emblem, to pub- 
lic view,) seems to bear some relation to the 
history of the first temptation, which introduced 
sin and death into the world. The account of 
Discord being cast out from heaven, referred 
to by Agamemnon, in the nineteenth book of 
Homer's Iliad, has been thought to be a cor- 
rupt tradition of the fall of the evil angels. 
Claudian shows an acquaintance with the cir- 
cumstances of the seduction of man, and of 
an ejection from paradise, and his description 
seems to have furnished subjects of imitation to 
Milton. 

"It has been imagined that the Indians enter- 
tained some notions, founded on traditionary 
accounts, of paradise ; and the representations 
of the serpent under the female form, and styled 
the Mexican Eve, are said to be found in the 
symbolical paintings of Mexico. 

"The original perfection of man, the corrup- 
tion of human nature resulting from the fall, 
and the increasing depravity which proccedod 
with augmented violenco from generation to 
generation, are to be found in various parts of 
profane literature Chryalns, the Pythagorean, 
declared that man was made in (ho imago of 
God. Cicero (as well as Ovid) speaka of man 
as created erect, as if God ezoited him to look 
up to his former relation and ancient abode. 



376 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



The loss of his resemblance to God was sup- 
posed to have resulted from disobedience, and 
was considered as so universal, that it was 
generally admitted, as it is expressed by Horace, 
that no man was born without vices. The con- 
viction of a gradual deterioration from age to age 
— of a change from a golden period, by successive 
transitions, to an iron depravity — -of a lapse 
from a state devoid of guilt and fear, to times 
filled with iniquity — was universally entertained. 

"Descriptions to this effect are to be found in 
the writings of almost all the poets, and they 
are confirmed by the reports of philosophers and 
historians. Providence seems to have drawn 
evidence of the guilt of men from their own 
confessions, and to have preserved their testi- 
monies for the conviction of subsequent times." — 
Gray's Connection. 

In the Gothic mythology, which seems to have 
been derived from the east, Thob is repre- 
sented as the first-born of the supreme God, and 
is styled in the Edda the eldest of sons. He was 
esteemed a middle divinity, mediator between 
God and man. With respect to his actions, he is 
said to have wrestled with death, and, in the 
struggle, to have been brought upon one knee : 
to have bruised the head of the serpent with 
his mace; and, in his final engagement with 
that monster, to have beat him to the earth 
and slain him. This victory, however, is not 
obtained but at the expense of his own life : 
"Recoiling back nine steps, he falls dead upon 
the spot, suffocated with the floods of venom 
which the serpent vomits forth upon him." 
Much the same notion, we are informed, is 
prevalent in the mythology of the Hindoos. 
"Two sculptured figures are yet extant in one 
of their oldest pagodas, the former of which 
represents Creeshna, an incarnation of their me- 
diatorial god Veeshnu, trampling on the crushed 
head of the serpent; while in the latter it is 
seen encircling the deity in its folds, and 
biting his heel." An engraving of this curious 
sculpture is given in Moore's Hindu Pantheon. 

As to those who would interpret the account, 
the literal meaning of which we have en- 
deavored to establish, partly literally, and partly 
allegorically, a satisfactory answer is given 
in the following observations of Bishop Horsley : 

"No writer of true history would mix plain 
matter of fact with allegory in one continued nar- 
rative, without any intimation of a transition from 
one to the other. If, therefore, any part of this 
narrative be matter of fact, no part is allegorical. 
On the other hand, if any part be allegorical, no 
part is naked matter of fact; and the conse- 
quence of this will be, that every thing in every 
part of the whole narrative must be allegorical. 



[PART II. 



j If the formation of the woman out of the man 
be allegory, the woman must be an allegorical 
woman. The man therefore must be an allego- 
rical man ; for of such a man only the allegorical 
woman will be a meet companion. If the man 
is allegorical, his paradise will be an allegorical 
garden; the trees that grow in it, allegorical 
trees; the rivers that watered it, allegorical 
rivers ; and thus we may ascend to the very be- 
ginning of the creation; and conclude at last 
that the heavens are allegorical heavens, and the 
earth an allegorical earth. Thus the whole his- 
tory of the creation will be an allegory, of which 
the real subject is not disclosed; and in this 
absurdity the scheme of allegorizing ends." — 
Horsley' s Sermons. 

But though the literal sense of the history is 
thus established, yet that it has in several parts, 
but in perfect accordance with the literal inter- 
pretation, a mystical and higher sense than 
the letter, is equally to be proved from the 
Scriptures ; and though some writers, who have 
maintained the literal interpretation inviolate, 
have run into unauthorized fancies in their in- 
terpretation of the mystical sense, that is no 
reason why we ought not to go to the full length 
to which the light of the Scriptures, an in- 
fallible comment upon themselves, will conduct 
us. It is, as we have seen, matter of established 
history, that our first parents were prohibited 
from the tree of knowledge, and, after their fail, 
were excluded from the tree of life ; that they 
were tempted by a serpent; and that various 
maledictions were passed upon them, and upon 
the instrument of their seduction. But, rightly 
to understand this history, it is necessary to 
recollect that man was in a state of trial: 
that the prohibition of a certain fruit was but 
one part of the law under which he was placed : 
that the serpent was but the instrument of the 
real tempter; and that the curse pronounced 
on the instrument was symbolical of the punish- 
ment reserved for the agent. 

The first of these particulars appears on the 
face of the history, and to a state of trial the 
power of moral freedom was essential. This is 
a subject on which we shall have occasion to 
speak more at large in the sequel ; but that the 
power of choosing good and evil was vested with 
our first parents, is as apparent from the ac- 
count as that they were placed under rule and 
restraint. In vain were they commanded to 
obey, if obedience were impossible: in vain 
placed under prohibition, if they had no power 
to resist temptation. Both would, indeed, have 
been unworthy the Divine legislator; and if 
this be allowed, then their moral freedom must 
also be conceded. They are contemplated 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



377 



throughout the whole transaction, not as in- 
struments, but as actors, and, as such, capable 
of reward and punishment. Commands are 
issued to them ; which supposes a power of 
obedience, either original and permanent in 
themselves, or derived, by the use of means, 
from God, and, therefore, attainable ; and how- 
ever the question may be darkened by metaphy- 
sical subtleties, the power to obey necessarily 
implied the power to refuse and rebel. The 
promised continuance of their happiness, which 
is to be viewed in the light of a reward, implies 
the one : the actual infliction of punishment as 
certainly includes the other. 

The power of obeying and the power of dis- 
obeying being then mutually involved, that 
which determines to the one or to the other is 
the will. For, if it were some power, ab extra, 
operating necessarily, man would no longer be 
an actor, but be reduced to the mere condition 
of a patient, the mere instrument of another. 
This does not, however, shut out solicitation and 
strong influence from without, provided it be 
allowed to be resistible, either by man's own 
strength, or by strength from a higher source, 
to which he may have access, and by which he 
may fortify himself. But as no absolute con- 
trol can be externally exerted over man's 
actions, and he remain accountable ; and, on 
the other hand, as his actions are in fact con- 
trollable in a manner consistent with his free 
agency, we must look for this power in his own 
mind ; and the only faculty which he possesses, 
to which any such property can be attributed, 
is called, for that very reason, and because 
of that very quality, his will or choice : a power 
by which, in that state of completeness and 
excellence in which Adam was created, he must 
be supposed to be able to command his thoughts, 
his desires, his words, and his conduct, however 
excited, with an absolute sovereignty. 1 

This faculty of willing, indeed, appears essen- 
tial to a rational being, in whatever rank he 
may be placed. "Every rational being," says 
Dr. Jenkins, very justly, {Reasonableness of Chris- 
tian Religion,) "must naturally have a liberty 
of choice — that is, it must have a will to choose 
as well as an understanding to reason ; because 
a faculty of understanding, if left to itself 
without a will to determine it, must always think 
of the samo objects, or proceed in a continued 
series and connection of thoughts, without any 

i"ImpulfliiB ctsi vobcmons valdo atquo potens ossot, 
voluntatis tuiiun Iraperio atquo arbitrio somper ogrossus 
ejus in actum suhjlciebatur, Poterat enun voluntas, di- 
vinne voluntatis considerations armata, resistors illi, oura- 
quo in ordinem lsta vi redlgerej alioquin enlm frnstanea 
fuisHct legislatio, qua affeotus circumsoribebatur et refrte- 
nabatur."— E pisco i'i us, Disputalio ix. 



end or design, which would be labor in vain, 
and tedious thoughtfulness to no purpose." 
But though will be essential to rational exist- 
ence, and freedom of will to a creature placed in 
a state of trial, yet the degree of external influ- 
ence upon its determinations, through whatever 
means it may operate, may be very different 
both in kind and degree ; which is only saying, 
in other words, that the circumstances of trial 
may be varied, and made more easy, or more 
difficult and dangerous, at the pleasure of the 
great Governor and Lord of all. Some who 
have written on this subject, seem to have car- 
ried their views of the circumstances of the 
paradisiacal probation too high : others have not 
placed them high enough. The first have repre- 
sented our first parents to have been so ex- 
clusively intellectual and devotional, as to be 
almost out of the reach of temptation from sense 
and passion : others, as approximating too nearly 
to their mortal and corrupt descendants. This, 
however, is plain from the Scriptures, the guide 
we ought scrupulously to follow, that they were 
subject to temptation, or solicitation of the will, 
from intellectual pride, from sense, and from pas- 
sion. The first two operated on Eve, and pro- 
bably also on Adam: to which was added, in 
him, a passionate subjection to the wishes of his 
wife. 2 If, then, these are the facts of their 
temptation, the circumstances of their trial are 
apparent. "The soul of man," observes Still- 
ingfleet, (Origines Sacrce,) "is seated in the 
middle, as it were, between those more excellent 
beings which live perpetually above, with which 
it partakes in the sublimity of its nature and 
understanding; and those inferior terrestrial 
beings, with which it communicates through the 
vital union which it has with the body; and 
that, by reason of its natural freedom, it is some- 
times assimilated to the one and sometimes to 
the other of these extremes. We must observe, 
further, that in this compound nature of ours 
there are several powers and faculties, several 
passions and affections, differing in their nature 
and tendency, according as they result from 
the soul or body: that each of these has its 
proper object, in a due application to which it is 
easy and satisfied : that they are none of them 
sinful in themselves, but may be instruments of 
much good, when rightly applied, as well as 
occasion great mischief by a misapplication; 
whereupon a considerable part of virtue will con- 
sist in regulating them, and in keeping our sensi- 
tive part subject to the rational. This is tho 

2 "Accessit in Adaino speclalls quidam COnjUgls propria) 

amor, quo adduotus In gratiani iiiius. affectui buo procll- 
vius Indnlsit, et tentationl Sathansa (koiliua oeasil anremqua 

prasbuit." — Erisconus, Disptitatio i\. 



378 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



original constitution of our nature ; and since 
the first man was endowed with the powers and 
faculties of the mind, and had the same disposi- 
tions and inclinations of body, it cannot be but 
that he must have been liable to the same sort of 
temptations, and, consequently, capable of com- 
plying with the dictates of sense and appetite, 
contrary to the direction of reason and the con- 
viction of his own mind ; and to this cause the 
Scripture seems to ascribe the commission of the 
first sin, when it tells us that the woman saw the 
tree, that it was good for food, and pleasant to 
the eye, and desirable to make one wise; i. e., it 
had several qualities that were adapted to her 
natural appetites : was beautiful to the sight, i 
and delightful to the taste, and improving to the 
understanding, which both answered the desire 
of knowledge implanted in her spiritual, and 
the love of sensual pleasure, resulting from her 
animal part; and these, heightened by the sug- 
gestions of the tempter, abated the horror of 
God's prohibition, and induced her to act con- 
trary to his express command." 

It is, therefore, manifest that the state of trial 
in which our first parents were placed was one 
which required, in order to the preservation of 
virtue, vigilance, prayer, resistance, and the 
active exercise of the dominion of the will over 
solicitation. No creature can be absolutely per- 
fect, because it is finite ; and it would appear, 
from the example of our first parents, that an 
innocent, and, in its kind, a perfect rational 
being, is kept from falling only by " taking hold" 
on God ; and as this is an act, there must be a 
determination of the will to it ; and so when the 
least carelessness, the least tampering with the 
desire of forbidden gratifications is induced, there 
is always an enemy at hand to make use of the 
opportunity to darken the judgment and to 
accelerate the progress of evil. Thus, "when 
desire hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and 
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." 
This is the only account we can obtain of the 
origin of evil, and it resolves itself into three prin- 
ciples : — 1. The necessary finiteness, and, there- 
fore, imperfection in degree of created natures. 
2. The liberty of choice, which is essential to 
rational, accountable beings. 8. The influence 
of temptation on the will. That Adam was so 
endowed as to have resisted the temptation, is a 
sufficient proof of the justice of his Maker through- 
out this transaction ; that his circumstances of 
trial were made precisely what they were, is to 
be resolved into a wisdom, the full manifestation 
of which is, probably, left to another state, and 
will, doubtless, there have its full declaration. 

The following acxite observations of Bishop 
Butler may assist us to conceive how possible it 



[PART II. 

is for a perfectly innocent being to fall under the 
power of evil, whenever a vigilant and resisting 
habit is not perfectly and absolutely persevered 
in : — " This seems distinctly conceivable, from the 
very nature of particular affections and propen- 
sions. For, suppose creatures intended for such a 
particular state of life for which such propensions 
were necessary : suppose them endowed with such 
propensions, together with moral understanding, 
as well including a practical sense of virtue as a 
speculative perception of it ; and that all these 
several principles, both natural and moral, form- 
ing an inward constitution of mind, were in the 
most exact proportion possible, i. e., in a pro- 
portion the most exactly adapted to their in- 
tended state of life : such creatures would be 
made upright, or finitely perfect. Now, particu- 
lar propensions, from their very nature, must be 
felt, the objects of them being present; though 
they cannot be gratified at all, or not with the 
allowance of the moral principle. But, if they 
can be gratified without its allowance, or by con- 
tradicting it, then they must be conceived to have 
some tendency, in how low a degree soever, yet 
some tendency, to induce persons to such for- 
bidden gratifications. This tendency, in some 
one particular propension, may be increased by 
the greater frequency of occasions naturally ex- 
citing it, than of occasions exciting others. The 
least voluntary indulgence in forbidden circum- 
stances, though but in thought, will increase this 
wrong tendency; and may increase it further, 
till, peculiar conjunctions perhaps conspiring, it 
becomes effect ; and danger from deviating from 
right, ends in actual deviation from it : a danger 
necessarily arising from the very nature of pro- 
pension ; and which, therefore, could not have 
been prevented, though it might have been 
escaped, or got innocently through. The case 
would be, as if we were to suppose a straight 
path marked out for a person, in which such a 
degree of attention would kdep him steady ; but 
if he would not attend in this degree, any one 
of a thousand objects, catching his eye, might 
lead him out of it. Now it is impossible to say 
how much even the first full overt act of irregu- 
larity might disorder the constitution, unsettle 
the adjustments, and alter the proportions which 
formed it, and in which the uprightness of its 
make consisted ; but repetition of irregularities 
would produce habits, and thus the constitution 
would be spoiled, and creatures made upright 
become corrupt and depraved in their settled 
character, proportionably to their repeated irregu- 
larities in occasional acts." — Analogy. 

These observations are general, and are intro- 
duced only to illustrate the point that we may 
conceive of a creature being made innocent, and 



CH. XVIIL ] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



379 



yet still dependent upon the exercise of caution 
for its preservation from moral corruption and 
offence. It was not, in fact, by the slow and 
almost imperceptible formation of evil habits, 
described in the extract just given, by which 
Adam fell ; that is but one way in which we may 
conceive it possible for sin to enter a holy soul. 
He was exposed to the wiles of a tempter, and 
his fall was sudden. But this exposure to a 
particular danger was only a circumstance in his 
condition of probation. It was a varied mode 
of subjecting the will to solicitation; but no 
necessity of yielding was laid upon man in con- 
sequence of this circumstance. From the history 
we learn that the Devil used not force but per- 
suasion, which involves no necessity; and that 
the Devil cannot force men to sin is sufficiently 
plain from this, that such is his malevolence, 
that if he could render sin inevitable, he would 
not resort to persuasion and the sophistry of 
error to accomplish an end more directly within 
his reach. 1 

The prohibition under which our first parents 
were placed has been the subject of many " a fool- 
born jest," and the threatened punishment has 
been argued to be disproportioned to the offence. 
Such objections are easily dissipated. We have 
already seen that all rational creatures are under 
a law which requires supreme love to God, and 
entire obedience to his commands ; and that, 
consequently, our first parents were placed under 
this equitable obligation. We have also seen that 
all specific laws emanate from this general law : 
that they are manifestations of it, and always 
suppose it. The decalogue was such a manifes- 
tation of it to the Jews, and the prohibition of 
the tree of knowledge is to be considered in the 
same light. Certainly this restraint presupposed 
a right in God to command, a duty in the crea- 
tures to obey ; and the particular precept was but 
the exercise of that previous right which was 
vested in him, and the enforcement of that pre- 
vious obligation upon them. To suppose it to be 
the only rule under which our first parents were 
placed would be absurd ; for then it would follow, 
that if they had become sensual in the use of any 
other food than that of the prohibited tree ; or 
if they had refused worship and honor to God, 
their Creator; or if they had become "hateful, 
and hating one another," these would not have 
been sins. This precept was, however, mado 
prominent by special injunction ; and it is enough 
to say that it was, as the event showed, a suffi- 
cient test of their obedience. 

K'Diabolus causa talis statui non potest; gina illo 
luaslone sola usus Legitur; suasio autem necessitates) 
milium affert, sed moralitex tantum roluntatem ad so 
(Jlicere atque attractlere oonatur." — BpisoopiuSi 



The objection that it was a positive, and not a 
moral precept, deserves to be for a moment con- 
sidered. The difference between the two is, that 
"moral precepts are those the reasons of which 
we see : positive precepts those the reasons of 
which we do not see. Moral duties arise out of 
the nature of the case itself, prior to external 
command : positive duties do not arise out of the 
nature of the case, but from external command ; 
nor would they be duties at all, were it not for 
such command received from him whose crea- 
tures and subjects we are." — Butler's Analogy. 
It has, however, been justly observed, that, since 
positive precepts have somewhat of a moral na- 
ture, we may see the reasons of them, considered 
in this view, and, so far as we discern the rea- 
sons of both, moral and positive precepts are 
alike. In the case in question no just objection, 
certainly, can be made against the making of a 
positive precept the special test of the obedience 
of our first parents. In point of obligation, 
positive precepts rest upon the same ground as 
moral ones, namely, the will of God. Granting, 
even, that we see no reason for them, this does 
not alter the case : we are bound to obey our 
Creator, both as matter of right and matter of 
gratitude ; and the very essence of sin consists 
in resisting the will of God. Even the reason of 
moral precepts, their fitness, suitableness, and 
influence upon society, do not constitute them ab- 
solutely obligatory upon us. The obligation 
rests upon their being made law by the authority 
of God. Their fitness, etc., may be the reasons 
why he has made them parts of his law ; but it 
is the promulgation of his will which makes the 
law and brings us under obligation. In this re- 
spect, then, moral and positive laws are of equal 
authority when enjoined with equal explicitness. 
To see or not to see the reasons of the Divine 
enactments, whether moral or positive, is a cir- 
cumstance which affects not the question of duty. 
There is, nevertheless, a distinction to be made 
between positive precepts and arbitrary ones, 
which have no reason but the will of him who 
enacts them, though, were such enjoined by Al- 
mighty God, our obligation to obey would be ab- 
solute. It is, however, proper to suppose, that 
when the reasons of positive precepts are not 
seen by us, they do, in reality, exist in those re- 
lations, and qualities, and habitudes of things 
which are only known to God ; for that he has a 
sufficient reason for all that ho requires of us, is 
a conclusion as rational as it is pious; and to 
slight positive precepts, therefore, is in fool to 
refuse obedience to the Lawgiver only on the 
proud and presumptuous ground that he lias not 
made us acquainted with his own reasons for en- 
acting them. Nor is tho institution of such pre- 



380 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



cepts without an obvious general moral reason, 
though the reason for the injunction of particular 
positive injunctions should not be explained. Hu- 
mility, which is the root of all virtue, may, in 
some circumstances, be more effectually pro- 
moted when we are required to obey under the 
authority of God, than when we are prompted 
also by the conviction of the fitness and excel- 
lence of his commands. It is true, that when 
the observance of a moral command and a posi- 
tive precept come into such opposition to one 
another that both cannot be observed, we have 
examples in Scripture which authorize us to pre- 
fer the former to the latter — as when our Lord 
healed on the Sabbath day, and justified his dis- 
ciples for plucking the ears of corn when they 
were hungry; yet, in point of fact, the rigid- 
ness which forbade the doing good on the Sab- 
bath day, in these cases of necessity, we have 
our Lord's authority to say, was the result of 
a misinterpretation of the moral precept itself, 
and no direct infringement of it was implied in 
either case. Should an actual impossibility oc- 
cur of observing two precepts, one a moral and 
the other a positive one, it can be but a rare 
case, and our conduct must certainly be regulated, 
not on our own views merely, but on such gen- 
eral principles as our now perfect revelation fur- 
nishes us with, and it is at our risk that we mis- 
apply them. In the case of our first parents, 
the positive command neither did, nor, appa- 
rently, in their circumstances, could stand in 
opposition to any moral injunction contained in 
that universal law under which they were placed. 
It harmonized perfectly with its two great prin- 
ciples, love to God and love to our neighbor, for 
both would be violated by disobedience : one, by 
rebellion against the Creator ; the other, by dis- 
regard of each other's welfare, and that of their 
posterity. 

Nor, indeed, was this positive injunction with- 
out some obvious moral reason — the case with 
probably all positive precepts of Divine authority, 
when carefully considered. The ordinances of 
public worship, baptism in the name of Christ, 
the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and the 
observance of the Sabbath, have numerous and 
very plain reasons both of subjection, recogni- 
tion, and gratitude ; and so had the prohibition 
of the fruit of one of the trees of the garden. 
The moral precepts of the decalogue would, for 
the most part, have been inappropriate to the pe- 
culiar condition of the first pair: such as the 
prohibitions of polytheism; of the use of idola- 
trous images ; of taking the name of God in vain ; 
of theft and adultery ; of murder and covetous- 
ness. Thus, even if objectors were left at liberty 
to attempt to point out a better test of obedience 



than that which was actually appointed, they 
would find, as in most such cases, how much easier 
it is to object than to suggest. The law was, in 
the first place, simple and explicit : it was not 
difficult of observation ; and it accorded with the 
circumstances of those on whom it was enjoined. 
They were placed amidst abundance of pleasant 
and exhilarating fruits, and of those one kind 
only was reserved. This reservation implied also 
great principles. It may be turned into ridicule : 
so, by an ignorant person, might the reserve 
in our customs of a pepper-corn, or other quit- 
rent, which yet are acknowledgments of subjec- 
tion and sovereignty. This is given as an illus- 
tration, not, indeed, as a parallel ; for there is a 
very natural view of this transaction in paradise, 
which gives to it an aspect so noble and digni- 
fied, that we may well shudder at the impiety of 
that poor wit by which it has been sometimes 
ignorantly assailed. The dominion of this lower 
world had been given to man, but it is equally 
required by the Divine glory, and by the benefit 
of creatures themselves, that all should acknow- 
ledge their subjection to him. Man was re- 
quired to do this, as it were, openly, and in the 
presence of the whole creation, by a public to- 
ken, and to give proof of it by a continued absti- 
nence from the prohibited fruit. He was required 
to do it in a way suitable to his excellent nature, 
and to his character as lord of all other crea- 
tures, by a free and voluntary obedience ; thus 
acknowledging the common Creator to be his su- 
preme Lord, and himself to be dependent upon 
his bounty and favor. In this view we can con- 
ceive nothing more fitting, as a test of obedience, 
and nothing more important, than the moral les- 
son continually taught by the obligation thus 
openly and publicly to acknowledge the rights 
and authority of him who was, naturally, the 
Lord of all. 1 

The immediate, visible agent in the seduction 
of man to sin was the serpent ; but the whole 
testimony of Scripture is in proof that the real 
tempter was that subtle and powerful evil spirit, 
whose general appellatives are the Devil and 
Satan. 2 This shows that ridicule, as to the 
serpent, is quite misplaced, and that one of the 
most serious doctrines is involved in the whole 
account — the doctrine of diabolical influence. 

l " Legem tamen Lane idcirco homini latam fuisse arbi- 
tramur, ut ei obsequendo et obtemperando, palam publice- 
que veluti testaretur, se, cui dominium reruni omnium 
creatarum a Deo delatum erat, Deo tamen ipsi subjectum 
obnoxiumque esse; utque obseq\iio eodem suo tanquam 
vasallus et cliens. publico aliquo recognitionis synibolo. pro- 
fiteretur, se in omnibus Deo suo, tanquam supremo Domino, 
obtemperare et parere Telle ; id quod sequissimum erat." — 
Episcopius. 

2 Tbe former word signifies a traducer and false accuser; 
the latter, an adversary. 



CH. XVIII.] 

We have already observed, that we have no means 
of ascertaining the pristine form and qualities of 
this animal, except that it was distinguished from 
all the beasts of the field, which the Lord God 
had made, by his " subtlety," or intelligence, for 
the word does not necessarily imply a bad sense ; 
and we might, indeed, be content to give credit 
to Satan for a wily choice of the most fitting in- 
strument for his purpose. These are questions 
which, however, sink into nothing before the im- 
portant doctrine of the liability of man, both in 
his primitive and in his fallen state, to tempta- 
tions marshalled and directed by a superior, ma- 
lignant intelligence. Of this, the fact cannot be 
doubted, if we admit the Scriptures to be inter- 
preted by any rules which will admit them to be 
written for explicit instruction and the use of 
popular readers ; and, although we have but 
general intimations of the existence of an order 
of apostate spirits, and know nothing of the date 
of their creation, or the circumstances of their 
probation and fall, yet this is clear, that they 
are permitted, for their "time," to have influence 
on earth : to war against the virtue and the peace 
of man, though under constant control and go- 
vernment ; and that this entered into the circum- 
stances of the trial of our first parents, and that 
it enters into ours. In this part of the history 
of the fall, therefore, without giving up any por- 
tion of the literal sense, we must, on the author- 
ity of other passages of Scripture, look beyond 
the letter, and regard the serpent but as the in- 
strument of a superhuman tempter, who then 
commenced his first act of warfare against the 
rule of God in this lower world ; and began a 
contest, which, for purposes of wisdom, to be 
hereafter more fully disclosed, he has been al- 
lowed to carry on for ages, and will still be 
permitted to maintain till the result shall make 
his fall more marked, and bring into view moral 
truths and principles in which the whole universe 
of innocent or redeemed creatures are, probably, 
to be instructed to their eternal advantage. 

In like manner, the malediction pronounced 
upon the serpent, while it is to be understood 
literally as to that animal, must be considered as 
teaching more than the letter simply expresses ; 
and the terms of it are, therefore, for the reason 
given above, (the comment found in other parts 
of Scripture,) to be regarded as symbolical. 
"As the literal sense does not exclude tho mysti- 
cal, the cursing of the serpent is a symbol to us, 
and a visible pledge of the malediction with 
which tho Devil is struck by God, and whereby 
he is become tho most abominablo and miscrablo 
of all creatures. But man, by the help of the 
seed of the woman, that is, by our Saviour, shall 
bruise his head, wound him in the place that is 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



381 



most mortal, and destroy him with eternal ruin. 
In the meantime, the enmity and abhorrence we 
have of the serpent is a continual warning to us 
of the danger we are in of the Devil, and how 
heartily we ought to abhor him and all his 
works." (Archbishop King.) To this view, 
indeed, strenuous objections have been made ; 
and in order to get quit of the doctrine of so 
early and significant a promise of a Redeemer — 
a promise so expressed as necessarily to imply 
redemption through the temporary suffering of 
the Redeemer, the bruising of his heel — many of 
those who are willing to give up the latter 
entirely, in other parts of the narrative, and to 
resolve the whole into fable, resist this addition 
of the parabolical meaning to the literal, and 
contend for that alone. In answer to this, we 
may observe, — 

1. That on the merely literal interpretation of 
these words, the main instrument of the trans- 
gression would remain unsentenced and unpun- 
ished. That instrument was the Devil, as already 
shown, and who, in evident allusion to this 
circumstance, is called in Scripture "a murderer 
from the beginning ;" "a liar and the father of 
lies;" "that old serpent, called the Devil and 
Satan, which deceiveth the whole world;" he 
"who sinneth from the beginning :" so that who- 
soever "committeth sin is of the Devil," and 
consequently our first parents. It is also in 
plain allusion to this history, and the bruising of 
the head of the serpent, that the apostle takes 
the phrase of "bruising" Satan under the feet 
of believers. These passages can only be dis- 
posed of by resolving the whole account of dia- 
bolical agency in Scripture into figures of speech ; 
(the theory adopted by Socinians, and which will 
be subsequently refuted ; ) but if the agency of 
Satan be allowed in this transaction, then to con- 
fine ourselves to the merely literal sense leaves 
the prime mover of the offence without any share 
of the malediction ; and the curse of the serpent 
must, therefore, in justice, be concluded to fall 
with the least weight upon the animal instrument, 
the serpent itself, and with its highest emphasis 
upon the intelligent and accountable seducer. 

2. We are compelled to this interpretation by 
the reason of the case. That a higher poweB 
was identified with the serpent in the transaction, 
is apparent, from the intelligent and rational 
powers ascribed to the serpent, which it is utterly 
inconsistent with the distinction between man 
and the inferior animals to attribute io a mere 
brute. He was tho most " subtle" ol' the beasts, 
made such near approaches to rationality as to 
bo a fit instrument by which to deceive: but, 
assuredly, tho uso of speech, oi' reasoning 
powers, a knowledge of the Divine law. and the 



882 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



power of seductive artifice to entrap human 
"beings in their state of perfection into sin against 
God, are not the faculties of an irrational ani- 
mal. The solemn manner, too, in which the 
Almighty addresses the serpent in pronouncing 
the curse, shows that an intelligent and free 
agent was arraigned before him, and it would, 
indeed, be ridiculous to suppose to the contrary. 

3. The circumstances of our first parents also 
confirm the symbolical interpretation, in conjunc- 
tion with the literal one. This is shown by 
Bishop Sherlock with much acuteness : — 

"They were now in a state of sin, standing 
before God to receive sentence for their disobedi- 
ence, and had reason to expect a full execution 
of the penalty threatened, In the day thou eat- 
est thereof, thou shalt surely die. But God came 
in mercy as well as judgment, purposing not 
only to punish, but to restore man. The judg- 
ment is awful and severe : the woman is doomed 
to sorrow in conception : the man to sorrow and 
travail all the days of his life : the ground is 
cursed for his sake ; and the end of the judg- 
ment is, Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt 
return. Had they been left thus, they might 
have continued in their labor and sorrow for 
their appointed time, and at last have returned 
to dust, without any well-grounded hope or con- 
fidence in God: they must have looked upon 
themselves as rejected by their Maker, delivered 
up to trouble and sorrow in this world, and as 
having no hope in any other. Upon this ground 
I conceive there could have been no religion left 
in the world; for a sense of religion without 
hope is a state of phrensy and distraction, void 
of all inducements to love and obedience, or any 
thing else that is praiseworthy. If, therefore, 
God intended to preserve them as objects of 
mercy, it was absolutely necessary to communi- 
cate so much hope to them as might be a rational 
foundation for their future endeavors to be 
reconciled to him. This seems to be the primary 
intention of this first Divine prophecy ; and it 
was necessary to the state of the world, and the 
condition of religion, which could not possibly 
have been supported without the communication 
of such hopes. The prophecy is excellently 
adapted to this purpose, and manifestly conveyed 
such hopes to our first parents. For let us con- 
sider in what sense we may suppose them to under- 
stand the prophecy. Now they must necessarily 
understand the prophecy, either according to the 
literal meaning of the words, or according to 
such meaning as the whole circumstance of the 
transaction, of which they are part, does require. 
If we suppose them to understand the words 
literally only, and that God meant them to be so 
understood, this passage must appear ridiculous. 



[PART II. 

Do but imagine that you see God coming to 
judge the offenders ; Adam and Eve before him 
in the utmost distress ; that you hear God inflict- 
ing pains, and sorrows, and misery, and death, 
upon the first of human race ; and that in the 
midst of all this scene of woe and great calamity, 
you hear him foretelling, with great solemnity, 
a very trivial accident that should sometimes 
happen in the world — that serpents would be apt 
to bite men by the heels, and that men would be 
apt to revenge themselves by striking them on 
the head. What has this trifle to do with the 
loss of mankind, with the corruption of the 
natural and moral world, and the ruin of all the 
glory and happiness of the creation? Great 
comfort it was to Adam, doubtless, after telling 
him that his days would be short and full of 
misery, and his end without hope, to let him 
know that he should now and then knock a 
snake on the head, but not even that without 
paying dear for his poor victory, for the snake 
should often bite him by the heel. Adam surely 
could not understand the prophecy in this sense, 
though some of his sons have so understood it. 
Leaving this, therefore, as absolutely absurd and 
ridiculous, let us consider what meaning the 
circumstances of the transaction do necessarily 
fix to the words of this prophecy. Adam tempted 
by his wife, and she by the serpent, had fallen 
from their obedience, and were now in the 
presence of God expecting judgment. They 
knew full well at this juncture that their fall 
was the victory of the serpent, whom by experi- 
ence they found to be an enemy to God and to 
man : to man, whom he had ruined by seducing 
him to sin ; to God, the noblest work of whose 
creation he had defaced. It could not, therefore, 
but be some comfort to them to hear the serpent 
first condemned, and to see that, however he had 
prevailed against them, he had gained no victory 
over their Maker, who was able to assert his own 
honor, and to punish this great author of ini- 
quity. By this method of God's proceeding they 
were secured from thinking that there was any 
evil being equal to the Creator in power and 
dominion: an opinion which gained ground in 
after-times through the prevalence of evil, and 
is, where it does prevail, destructive of all true 
religion. The belief of God's supreme dominion, 
which is the foundation of all religion, being 
thus preserved, it was still necessary to give 
them such hopes as they could not but conceive, 
when they heard from the mouth of God, that 
the serpent's victory was not a complete victory, 
over even themselves; that they and their 
posterity should be enabled to contest his em- 
pire ; and though they were to suffer much in 
the struggle, yet finally they should prevail, and 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



383 



bruise the serpent's head, and be delivered from 
his power and dominion over them. What now 
could they conceive this conquest over the 
serpent to mean? Is it not natural to expect 
that we shall recover that by victory which we 
lost by being defeated? They knew that the 
enemy had subdued them by sin: could they then 
conceive hopes of victory otherwise than by 
righteousness ? They lost through sin the happi- 
ness of their creation: could they expect less 
from the return of righteousness than the re- 
covery of the blessings forfeited? What else 
but this could they expect? For the certain 
knowledge they had of their loss when the 
serpent prevailed, could not but lead them to a 
clear knowledge of what they should regain by 
prevailing against the serpent. The language 
of this prophecy is, indeed, in part metaphorical ; 
but it is a great mistake to think that all meta- 
phors are of uncertain signification; for the 
design and scope of the speaker, with the cir- 
cumstances attending, create a final and determi- 
nate sense." 

The import of this prediction appears, from 
various allusions of Scripture, to have been, 
that the Messiah, who was, in an eminent and 
peculiar sense, the seed of the woman, should, 
though himself bruised in the conflict, obtain a 
complete victory over the malice and power of 
Satan, and so restore those benefits to man which 
by sin he had lost. From this time hope looked 
forward to the Great Kestorer, and sacrifices, 
which are no otherwise to be accounted for, be- 
gan to be offered, in prefiguration of the fact 
and efficacy of his sufferings. From that first 
promise, that light of salvation broke forth 
which, by the increased illumination of revela- 
tion, through following ages, shone brighter and 
brighter to the perfect day. To what extent our 
first parents understood this promise it is not 
possible for us to say. Sufficiently, there is no 
doubt, for hope and faith ; and that it might be 
the ground of a new dispensation of religion, in 
which salvation was to be of grace, not of 
works, and in which prayer was to be offered for 
all necessary blessings, on the ground of pure 
mercy, and through the intercession of an in- 
finitely worthy Mediator. The Scriptures cannot 
be explained, unless this be admitted, for these 
are the very principles which are assumed in 
God's government of man from the period of his 
fall ; and it is, therefore, probable that in those 
earliest patriarchal ages, of which wo have so 
brief and rapid an account in tho writings of 
Moses, and which we may, nevertheless, collect, 
were ages distinguished by tho frcquont and 
visible intercourse of God and superior beings 
with men, there were revelations made and in- 



structions given which are not specifically re- 
corded, but which formed that body of theology 
which is, unquestionably, presupposed by the 
whole Mosaic institute. But if we allow that 
this first promise, as interpreted by us, contains 
more than our first parents can be supposed to 
have discovered in it, we may say, with the pre- 
late just quoted, "Since this prophecy has been 
plainly fulfilled in Christ, and by the event ap- 
propriated to him only, I would fain know how 
it comes to be conceived to be so ridiculous a 
thing in us to suppose that God, to whom the 
whole event was known from the beginning, 
should make choice of such expressions as na- 
turally conveyed so much knowledge to our first 
parents as he intended, and yet should appear, 
in the fulness of time, to have been peculiarly 
adapted to the event which he, from the be- 
ginning, saw, and which he intended the world 
should one day see, and which, when they should 
see, they might the more easily acknowledge to 
be the work of his hand, by the secret evidence 
which he had enclosed from the days of old in 
the words of prophecy." 

From these remarks on the history of the fall, 
we are called to consider the state into which 
that event reduced the first man and his pos- 
terity. 

As to Adam, it is clear that he became liable 
to inevitable death, and that, during his tem- 
porary life, he was doomed to severe labor, ex- 
pressed in Scripture by eating his bread in or 
"by the sweat of his brow." These are incon- 
trovertible points ; but that the threatening of 
death, as the penalty of disobedience, included 
spiritual and eternal death, as to himself and his 
posterity, has been, and continues to be, largely 
and resolutely debated, and will require our con- 
sideration. 

On this subject, the following are the leading 
opinions : — 

The view stated by Pelagius, who lived in the 
fifth century, is (if he has not been misrepre- 
sented) that which is held by the modern Soci- 
nians. It is, that though Adam, by his trans- 
gression, exposed himself to the displeasure of 
his Maker, yet that neither were the powers of 
his own nature at all impaired, nor have his pos- 
terity, in any sense, sustained the smallest hurt 
by his disobedience ; that he was created mortal, 
and would, therefore, have died, had he not 
sinned ; and that the only evil ho suffered was 
his being expelled from paradise, and subjected 
to the discipline of labor. That his posterity, 
like himself, are placed in a state of trial; that 
death to them, as to him, is a natural event : and 
that tho prospect of certain dissolution, joined 
to tho common calamities of life, is favorable to 



384 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



the cultivation of virtue. By a proper attention, 
we may maintain our innocence amidst surround- 
ing temptations, and may also daily improve in 
moral excellence, by the proper use of reason 
and other natural powers. 

A second opinion has been attributed to the 
followers of Arminius, on which a remark shall 
just now be offered. It has been thus epito- 
mized by Dr. Hill : — 

"According to this opinion, although the first 
man had a body naturally frail and mortal, his 
life would have been for ever preserved by the 
bounty of his Creator, had he continued obedient ; 
and the instrument employed by God to preserve 
his mortal body from decay was the fruit of the 
tree of life. Death was declared to be the pen- 
alty of transgression ; and, therefore, as soon as 
he transgressed, he was removed at a distance 
from the tree of life ; and his posterity, inherit- 
ing his natural mortality, and not having access 
to the tree of life, are subjected to death. It is 
therefore said by St. Paul, ' By one man sin en- 
tered into the world, and death by sin,' and so 
death passed upon all men. In Adam all die. 
By one man's offence death reigned by one.' 
These expressions clearly point out death to be 
the consequence of Adam's transgression, an evil 
brought upon his posterity by his fault ; and this 
the Arminians understand to be the whole mean- 
ing of its being said, 'Adam begat a son in his 
own likeness, after his image,' (Gen. v. 3,) and 
of Paul saying, 'We have borne the image of the 
earthy.' 

"It is admitted, however, by those who hold 
the opinion, that this change upon the condition 
of mankind, from a life preserved without end, 
to mortality, was most unfavorable to their moral 
character. The fear of death enfeebles and en- 
slaves the mind; the pursuit of those things 
which are necessary to support a frail, perishing 
life engrosses and contracts the soul; and the 
desires of sensual pleasure are rendered more 
eager and ungovernable by the knowledge that 
the time of enjoying them soon passes away. 
Hence arise envying of those who have a larger 
share of the good things of this life — strife 
with those who interfere in our enjoyments — im- 
patience under restraint — and sorrow and repin- 
ing when pleasure is abridged. And to this va- 
riety of turbulent passions, the natural fruits of 
the punishment of Adam's transgression, there 
are also to be added all the fretfulness and dis- 
quietude occasioned by the diseases and pains 
which are inseparable from the condition of a 
mortal being. In this way the Arminians ex- 
plain such expressions as these, ' By one man's 
disobedience many were made sinners ;' 'All are 
under sin;' 'Behold I was shapen in iniquity;' 



[part n. 



! i. e., all men, in consequence of Adam's sin, are 
j born in these circumstances — under that disposi- 
tion of events which subjects them to the do- 
minion of passion, and exposes them to so many 
temptations, that it is impossible for any man to 
maintain his integrity. And hence, they say, 
arises the necessity of a Saviour, who, restoring 
to man the immortality which he had forfeited, 
may be said to have abolished death ; who effect- 
ually delivers his followers from that bondage 
of mind, and that corruption of character, which 
are connected with the fear of death ; who, by 
his perfect obedience, obtains pardon for those 
sins into which they have been betrayed by their 
condition, and by his Spirit enables them to over- 
come the temptations which human nature of 
itself cannot withstand. 

"According to this opinion, then, the human 
race has suffered universally in a very high de- 
gree by the sin of their first parent. At the same 
time, the manner of their suffering is analogous 
to many circumstances in the ordinary dispensa- 
tions of Providence ; for we often see children, 
by the negligence or fault of their parents, 
placed in situations very unfavorable both to 
their prosperity and to their improvement ; and 
we can trace the profligacy of their character to 
the defects of their education, to the example set 
before them in their youth, and to the multiplied 
temptations in which, from a want of due atten- 
tion on the part of others, they find themselves 
early entangled." — Lectures. 

That this is a very defective view of the effects 
of the original offence upon Adam and his de- 
scendants, must be acknowledged. Whether 
Adam, as to his body, became mortal by positive 
infliction, or by being excluded from the means 
of warding off disease and mortality, which were 
provided in the tree of life, is a speculative point, 
which has no important theological bearing; but 
that the corruption of our nature, and not merely 
its greater liability to be corrupted, is the doc- 
trine of Scripture, will presently be shown. This 
[semi-Pelagian sentiment] was not the opinion 
of Arminius, nor of his immediate followers. Nor 
is it the opinion of that large body of Christians, 
often called Arminians, who follow the theologi- 
cal opinions of Mr. Wesley. It was the opinion 
of Dr. Whitby and several divines of the English 
Church, who, though called Arminians, were 
semi-Pelagians, or at least made great approaches 
to that error ; and the writer just quoted has no 
authority for giving this as the Arminian opinion, 
except the work of Whitby, entitled, Tractates 
de Imputatione Peccaii Adami. In this, however, 
he has followed others, who, on Whitby's author- 
ity, attribute this notion not only to Arminius 
singly, but to the body of the Remonstrants, and 



CH. XVIII-] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



385 



to all those who, to this day, advocate the doc- 
trine of general redemption. This is one proof 
how little pains many divines of the Calvinistic 
school have taken to understand the opinions 
they have hastily condemned in mass. 

The following passages from the writings of 
Arminius will do justice to the character of that 
eminent divine on this important subject. 

In the 15th and 16th propositions of his seventh 
public lecture on the first sin of the first man, he 
says : — 

" The immediate and proper effect of this sin 
was, that God was offended by it. For since the 
form of sin is the transgression of the law, (1 John 
iii. 4,) such transgression primarily and imme- 
diately impinges against the Legislator himself ; 
(Gen. iii. 2 ;) and it impinges against him (Gen. 
iii. 16, 19, 23, 24) with offence, it having been 
his will that his law should not be infringed: 
(Gen. iii. 17:) from which he conceives a just 
wrath, which is the second effect of sin. But 
this wrath is followed by the infliction of punish- 
ment, which here is twofold: 1. A liability to 
both deaths. (Rom. vi. 23.) 2. A privation of 
that primeval holiness and righteousness (Luke 
xix. 26) which, because they were the effects of 
the Holy Spirit dwelling in man, ought not to 
remain in man who had fallen from the favor of 
God, and had incurred his anger. For that 
Spirit is a seal and token of the Divine favor and 
benevolence. (Rom. viii. 14, 15: 1 Cor. ii. 12.) 

"But the whole of this sin is not peculiar to 
our first parents, but is common to the whole 
race, and to all their posterity, who, at the time 
when the first sin was committed, were in their 
loins, and who afterward descended from them 
in the natural mode of propagation, according 
to the primitive benediction. For, in Adam, all 
have sinned. (Rom. v. 12.) Whatever punish- 
ment, therefore, was inflicted on our first parents 
has also pervaded all their posterity, and still 
oppresses them : so that all are by nature child- 
ren of wrath, (Eph. ii. 1-3,) obnoxious to con- 
demnation and to death, temporal and eternal, 
(Rom. v. 12,) and are, lastly, devoid of that 
[primeval] righteousness and holiness: with 
which evils they would continue oppressed for 
ever, unless they were delivered from them by 
Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and 
ever! Rom. v. 18, 19." 

In the epistle which Arminius addressed to 
Hippolytus, describing grace and free-will, his 
views on this subject are still more clearly ex- 
pressed : — 

"It is impossible for free-will without grace 
to begin or perfect any true or spiritual good. 
I say the grace of Christ, which pertains to re- 
generation, is simply and absolutely necessary 
25 



for the illumination of the mind, the ordering of 
the affections, and the inclination of the will to 
that which is good. It is that which operates on 
the mind, the affections, and the will ; which in- 
fuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good 
desires into the affections, and leads the will to 
execute good thoughts and good desires. It pre- 
vents, (goes before,) accompanies, and follows. 
It excites, assists, works in us to will, and works 
with us, that we may not will in vain. It averts 
temptations, stands by and aids us in tempta- 
tions, supports us against the flesh, the world, 
and Satan ; and, in the conflict, it grants us to 
enjoy the victory. It raises up again those who 
are conquered and fallen, it establishes them, 
and endues them with new strength, and renders 
them more cautious. It begins, promotes, per- 
fects, and consummates salvation. I confess that 
the mind of the natural (animalis) and carnal 
man is darkened, his affections are depraved and 
disordered, his will is refractory, and that the 
man is dead in sins." 

And, in his eleventh Public Disputation on the 
Free-will of Man, and its powers, he says "that 
the will of man, with respect to true good, is not 
only wounded, bruised, inferior, crooked, and 
attenuated, but it is likewise captivated, destroyed, 
and lost; and has no powers whatever, except 
such as are excited by grace." 

The doctrine of the Remonstrants is, "that 
God, to the glory of his abundant goodness, hav- 
ing decreed to make man after his own image, 
and to give him an easy and most equal law, and 
add thereunto a threatening of death to the 
transgressors thereof; and foreseeing that Adam 
would wilfully transgress the same, and thereby 
make himself and his posterity liable to condem- 
nation ; though God was, notwithstanding, mer- 
cifully affected toward man, yet, out of respect 
to his justice and truth, he would not give way 
to his mercy to save man till his justice should 
be satisfied, and his serious hatred of sin and 
love of righteousness should be made known." 
The condemnation here spoken of, as affecting 
Adam and his posterity, is to be understood of 
more than the death of the body, as being op- 
posed to the salvation procured by the sacrifice 
of Christ ; and, with respect to the moral state 
of human naturo since the fall, the third of their 
articles, exhibited at the synod of Dort, states, 
that the Remonstrants "hold that a man hath 
not saving faith of himself, nor from the power 
of his own freo-will, seeing that, while he is in 
the stato of sin, he cannot of himself, nor by 
himself, think, will, or do any saving good." x 



1 Soo tenets of the Remonstrants, in Nlohol'a "Calvinism 

and Anninianism Goioparfld.-" 



386 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



The doctrine of the Church of England, though 
often claimed as exclusively Calvinistic on this 
point, accords perfectly with true Arminianism. 
"Original sin standeth not in the following or 
imitation of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly 
talk; but it is the fault or corruption of the 
nature of every man, that naturally is engen- 
dered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is 
very far gone from original righteousness, and is 
of his own nature only inclined to evil," etc. 
Some of the divines of this Church have, on the 
other hand, endeavored to soften this article, by 
availing themselves of the phrase "very far 
gone," as though it did not express a total de- 
fection from original righteousness. The articles 
were, however, subscribed by the two houses of 
convocation, in 1571, in Latin and English also, 
and therefore both copies are equally authentic. 
The Latin copy expresses this phrase by "quam 
longissime distet:" which is as strong an expres- 
sion as that language can furnish, fixes the sense 
of the compilers on this point, and takes away 
the argument which rests on the alleged equivo- 
calness of the English version. Nor does there 
appear any material discrepancy between this 
statement of the fallen condition of man and the 
Augsburg Confession, the doctrine of the French 
Churches, that of the Calvinistic Church of Scot- 
land, and, so far as the moral state of man only 
is concerned, the views of Calvin himself. There 
are, it is true, such expressions as "contagion," 
"infection," and the like, in some of these form- 
ularies, which are somewhat equivocal, as bear- 
ing upon a point from which some divines, both 
Arminians and Calvinists, have dissented — the 
direct corruption of human nature by a sort of 
judicial act ; but, this point excepted, to which 
we shall subsequently turn our attention, the 
true Arminian, as fully as the Calvinist, admits 
the doctrine of the total depravity of human 
nature in consequence of the fall of our first 
parents; and is, indeed, enabled to carry it 
through his system with greater consistency than 
the Calvinist himself. For, while the latter is 
obliged, in order to account, for certain good dis- 
positions and occasional religious inclinations in 
those who never give any evidence of their ac- 
tual conversion to God, to refer them to nature, 
and not to grace, which, according to them, is 
not given to the reprobate, the believer in gene- 
ral redemption maintains the total incapacity of 
unassisted nature to produce such effects, and 
attributes them to that Divine gracious influence 
which, if not resisted, would lead on to conver- 
sion. Some of the doctrines joined by Calvinists 
with the corruption of our common nature are, 
indeed, very disputable, and such as we shall, in 
the proper place, attempt to prove unscriptural ; 



but in this, Arminians and they so well agree, 
that it is an entire delusion to represent this doc- 
trine, as it is often done, as exclusively Calvin- 
istic. " The Calvinists," says Bishop Tomline, 
" contend that the sin of Adam introduced into 
his nature such a radical impotence and de- 
pravity, that it is impossible for his descendants 
to make any voluntary effort [of themselves] 
toward piety and virtue, or in any respect to 
correct and improve their moral and religious 
character ; and that faith, and all the Christian 
graces, are communicated by the sole and irre- 
sistible operation of the Spirit of God, without 
any endeavor or concurrence on the part of 
man." [Refutation of Calvinism.) The latter 
part only of this statement gives the Calvinistic 
peculiarity ; the former is not exclusively theirs. 
We have seen the sentiment of Arminius on the 
natural state of man, and it perfectly harmonizes 
with that of Calvin, where he says, in his own 
forcible manner, " that man is so totally over- 
whelmed, as with a deluge, that no part is free 
from sin, and therefore whatever proceeds from 
him is accounted sin." — Institutes. 

But in bringing all these opinions to the test 
of scriptural testimony, we must first inquire 
into the import of the penalty of death, threat- 
ened upon the offences of the first man. 

The Pelagian and Socinian notion, that Adam 
would have died had he not sinned, requires no 
other refutation than the words of the Apostle 
Paul, who declares expressly that death entered 
the world "by sin;" and so it inevitably fol- 
lows that, as to man at least, but for sin there 
would have been no death. 

The notion of others, that the death threat- 
ened extended to the annihilation of the soul as 
well as the body, and was only arrested by the 
interposition of a Redeemer, assumes a doctrine 
which has no countenance at all in Scripture, 
namely, that the penalty of transgressing the 
Divine law, when it extends to the soul, is death 
in the sense of annihilation. On the contrary, 
whenever the threat of death, in Scripture, 
refers to the soul, it unquestionably means fu- 
ture and conscious punishment. Besides, the 
term "death," which conveys the threatening, 
does not properly express annihilation. There 
is no adequate opposition between life and anni- 
hilation. If there were such an opposition be- 
tween them, then life and non-annihilation must 
be equivalent terms. But they are not; for 
many things exist which do not live ; and thus 
both the sense attached to the term death, in 
Scripture, when applied to the soul, as well as 
the proper sense of that term itself, and the 
reason of the thing, forbid that interpretation. 

The death threatened to Adam, we conclude, 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



387 



therefore, to have extended to the soul of man 
as well as to his body, though not in the sense 
of annihilation ; but, for the confirmation of 
this, it is necessary to refer more particularly to 
the language of Scripture, which is its own best 
interpreter, and it will be seen that the opinion 
of those divines who include in the penalty at- 
tached to the first offence the very "fulness of 
death," as it has been justly termed, death bodily, 
spiritual, and eternal, is not to be puffed away by 
sai-casm, but stands firm on inspired testimony. 

Besides death, as it is opposed to animal life, 
and which consists in the separation of the 
rational soul from the body, the Scriptures speak 
of the life and death of the soul in a moral 
sense. The first consists in the union of the 
soul to God, and is manifested by those vigorous, 
grateful, and holy affections, which are, by this 
union, produced. The second consists in a 
separation of the soul from communion with 
God, and is manifested by the dominion of earth- 
ly and corrupt dispositions and habits, and an 
entire indifference or aversion to spiritual and 
heavenly things. This, too, is represented as 
the state of all who are not quickened by the 
instrumentality of the gospel, employed for this 
purpose by the power and agency of its Divine 
Author. "And you hath he quickened who 
were dead in trespasses and sins." The state 
of a regenerate mind is, in accordance with this 
view, represented as a resurrection, and a pass- 
ing "from death unto life ;" and both to Christ 
and to the Holy Spirit is this work of quicken- 
ing the souls of men and preserving them in 
moral or spiritual life attributed. To interpret, 
then, the death pronounced upon Adam as in- 
cluding moral death, seeing that he, by his trans- 
gression, fell actually into the same moral state 
as a sinner against God, in which all those persons 
now are who are dead in trespasses and sins, is 
in entire accordance with the language of Scrip- 
ture. For if a state of sin in them is a state 
of spiritual death, then a state of sin in him 
was a state of spiritual death ; and that both by 
natural consequence, the same cause producing 
the same effect, and also by the appointment of 
God, who departs from sinful men, and, with- 
drawing himself from all communion with the 
guilty, withdraws thereby the only source of 
moral or spiritual life. 

But the highest sense of the term "death," in 
Scripture, is the punishment of the soul in a 
future state, both by a loss of happiness and 
separation from God, and also by a positive in- 
fliction of Divine wrath. Now this is stated, not 
as peculiar to any dispensation of religion, but 
ns common to nil; us the penalty of the trans- 
gression of the law of God in every degree. 



"Sin is the transgression of the law;" this is its 
definition: "the wages of sin is death;" this is 
its penalty. Here we have no mention made of 
any particular sin, as rendering the transgressor 
liable to this penalty, nor of any particular cir- 
cumstance under which sin may be committed, 
as calling forth that fatal expression of the Di- 
vine displeasure ; but of sin itself generally : of 
transgression of the Divine law, in every form 
and degree, it is affirmed, "the wages of sin is 
death." This is, therefore, to be considered as 
an axiom in the jurisprudence of Heaven. 
" Sin," says St. James, with like absolute and 
unqualified manner, "when it is finished, bring- 
eth forth death ;" nor have we the least intima- 
tion given in Scripture, that any sin whatever 
is exempted from this penalty — that some sins 
are punished in this life only, and others in the 
life to come. The degree of punishment will be 
varied by the offence ; but death is the penalty 
attached to all sin, unless it is averted by par- 
don, which itself supposes that in law the 
penalty has been incurred. What was there, 
then, in the case of Adam to take him out of 
this rule? His act was a transgression of the 
law, and therefore sin; as sin, its wages was 
"death," which, in Scripture, we have seen, 
means, in its highest sense, future punishment. 

To this Dr. Taylor, whom most modern writers 
who deny the doctrine of original sin have fol- 
lowed, objects: "Death was to be the conse- 
quence of his disobedience, and the death here 
threatened can be opposed only to that life God 
gave Adam when he created him." 

To this it has been replied : — 

"True; but how are you assured that God, 
when he created him, did not give him spiritual 
as well as animal life ? Now spiritual death is 
opposed to spiritual life. And this is more than 
the death of the body. 

"But this, you say, is pure conjecture, with- 
out a solid foundation ; for no other life is 
spoken of before. Yes, there is. The image of 
God is spoken of before. This is not, therefore, 
pure conjecture ; but is grounded upon a solid 
foundation, upon the plain word of God. Al- 
lowing, then, that 'Adam could understand it of 
no other life than that which he had newly re- 
ceived,' yet would he naturally understand it 
of the life of God in his soul, as well as of the lift 
of his body. In this light, therefore, the sense 
of the threatening will stand thus: 'Thou sholt 
snrely die:' as if he had said, I have formed 
thee of the dust of the ground, and 'breathed 
into thy nostrils tho breath of lives.' both of 
animal and spiritual life; and in both respects 
thou art become a living soul. 'But if thou 
catest of the forbidden tree, thou sholt 06086 io 



388 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



be a living soul. For I will take from thee the 
lives I have given, and thou shalt die spiritually, 
temporally, eternally.' " — Wesley on Original Sin. 

The answer of President Edwards is more at 
large : 

"To this I would say: it is true, death is 
opposed to life, and must be understood according 
to the nature of that life, to which it is opposed. 
But does it therefore follow that nothing can 
be meant by it but the loss of life ? Misery is 
opposed to happiness, and sorrow is in Scripture 
often opposed to joy; but can we conclude 
from thence that nothing is meant in Scrip- 
ture by sorrow but the loss of joy? Or that 
there is no more in misery than the loss or 
absence of happiness ? And if the death threat- 
ened to Adam can, with certainty, be opposed 
only to the life given to Adam, when God created 
him, I think a state of perfect, perpetual, and 
hopeless misery is properly opposed to that state 
Adam was in when God created him. For I sup- 
pose it will not be denied that the life Adam 
had was truly a happy life : happy in perfect 
innocency, in the favor of his Maker, surround- 
ed with the happy fruits and testimonies of his 
love. And I think it has been proved that he 
also was happy in a state of perfect righteous- 
ness. Nothing is more manifest than that it is 
agreeable to a very common acceptation of 
the word life in Scripture, that it be under- 
stood as signifying a state of excellent and 
happy existence. Now, that which is most op- 
posite to that life and state in which Adam was 
created, is a state of total, confirmed wickedness, 
and perfect, hopeless misery, under the Divine 
displeasure and curse: not excluding temporal 
death, or the destruction of the body, as an in- 
troduction to it. 

"Besides, that which is much more evident 
than any thing Dr. T. says on this head, is, 
that the death which was to come on Adam, as 
the punishment of his disobedience, was opposed 
to that life which he would have had as the 
reward of his obedience in case he had not 
sinned. Obedience and disobedience are contra- 
ries : the threatenings and promises which are 
sanctions of a law, are set in direct opposition ; 
and the promises, rewards, and threatened punish- 
ments, are most properly taken as each other's 
opposites. But none will deny that the life 
which would have been Adam's reward, if he 
had persisted in obedience, was eternal life. 
And therefore we argue justly that the death 
which stands opposed to that life, (Dr. T. him- 
self being judge,) is manifestly eternal death, 
a death widely different from the death we now 
die — to use his own words. If Adam for his 
persevering obedience was to have had ever- 



[PART II. 

lasting life and happiness, in perfect holiness, 
union with his Maker, and enjoyment of his 
favor, and this was the life which was to be 
confirmed by the tree of life ; then, doubtless, 
the death threatened in case of disobedience, 
which stands in direct opposition to this, was an 
exposure to everlasting wickedness and misery, in 
separation from God, and in enduring his wrath." — 
Original Sin. 

The next question is, whether Adam is to be 
considered as a mere individual, the conse- 
quences of whose misconduct terminated in him- 
self, or no otherwise affected his posterity than 
incidentally, as the misconduct of an ordinary 
parent may affect the circumstances of his 
children ; or whether he is to be regarded as a 
public man, the head and representative of the 
human race, who, in consequence of his fall, 
have fallen with him, and received direct hurt 
and injury in the very constitution of their bodies, 
and the moral state of their minds. 

The testimony of Scripture is so explicit on 
this point, that all the attempts to evade it have 
been in vain. In Romans v., Adam and Christ 
are contrasted in their public or federal char- 
acter ; and the hurt which mankind have derived 
from the one, and the healing they have received 
from the other, are also contrasted in various par- 
ticulars, which are equally represented as the 
effects of the "offence" of Adam, and of the 
"obedience" of Christ. Adam, indeed, in verse 
14, is called, with evident allusion to this pub- 
lic representative character, the figure, (rvizoc,) 
type, or model "of him that was to come." 
The same apostle also adopts the phrases, "the 
first Adam," and "the second Adam," which 
mode of speaking can only be explained on the 
ground, that as sin and death descended from 
one, so righteousness and life flow from the 
other ; and that what Christ is to all his spiritual 
seed, that Adam is to all his natural descend- 
ants. On this, indeed, the parallel is founded, 1 
Cor. xv. 22, "For as in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive ;" words which on 
any other hypothesis can have no natural signi- 
fication. Nor is there any weight in the obser- 
vation, that this relation of Adam to his descend- 
ants is not expressly stated in the history of the 
fall; since, if it were not indicated in that 
account, the comment of an inspired apostle is, 
doubtless, a sufficient authority. But the fact 
is, that the threatenings pronounced upon the 
first pair have all respect to their posterity as 
well as to themselves. The death threatened 
affects all— "In Adam all die;" "Death entered 
by sin," that is, by his sin, and then "passed 
upon all men." The painful childbearing threat- 
ened upon Eve has passed on to her daughters. 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



389 



The ground was cursed, but that affected Adam's 
posterity also, who, to this hour, are doomed to 
eat their bread by "the sweat of their brow." 
Even the first blessing, "Be fruitful, and multi- 
ply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it," 
was clearly pronounced upon them as public 
persons, and both by its very terms and the 
nature of the thing, since they alone could 
neither replenish the earth nor subject it to their 
use and dominion, comprehended their posterity. 
In all these cases they are addressed in such 
a form of speech as is appropriated to indivi- 
duals ; but the circumstances of the case infalli- 
bly show that, in the whole transaction, they 
stood before their Maker as public persons, and 
as the legal representatives of their descendants, 
though in so many words they are not invested 
with these titles. 

The condition in which this federal connec- 
tion between Adam and his descendants placed 
the latter, remains to be exhibited. The impu- 
tation of Adam's sin to his posterity has been a 
point greatly debated. In the language of theo- 
logians, it is considered as mediate or immediate. 
Our mortality of body and the corruption of 
our moral nature, in virtue of our derivation 
from him, is what is meant by the mediate impu- 
tation of his sin to us : by immediate imputation 
is meant that Adam's sin is accounted ours in 
the sight of God, by virtue of our federal rela- 
tion. To support the latter notion, various 
illustrative phrases have been used: as, that 
Adam and his posterity constitute one moral per- 
son, and that the whole human race was in him, 
its head, consenting to his act, etc. This is so 
little agreeable to that distinct agency which 
enters into the very notion of an accountable 
being, that it cannot be maintained, and it de- 
stroys the sound distinction between original 
and actual sin. It asserts, indeed, the imputa- 
tion of the actual commission of Adam's sin to 
his descendants, which is false in fact: makes 
us stand chargeable with the full latitude of his 
transgression, and all its attendant circumstances; 
and constitutes us, separate from all actual 
voluntary offence, equally guilty with him; all 
which are repugnant equally to our consciousness 
and to the equity of the case. 

The other opinion does not, however, appear 
to go the length of Scripture, which must not 
be warped by the reasonings of erring man. 
There is another view of the imputation of the 
offence of Adam to us which is more con- 
sistent with its testimony. This is very clearly 
stated by Dr. Watts in his answer to Dr. Taylor. 

" When a man lias broken the law of his coun- 
try, and is punished for so doing, it is plain that 
sin is imputed to him: his wickedness is upon 



him ; he bears his iniquity ; that is, he is reputed 
or accounted guilty : he is condemned and dealt 
with as an offender. 

"But if a man, having committed treason, his 
estate is taken from him and his children, then 
they bear the iniquity of their father, and his sin 
is imputed to them also. 

" If a man lose his life and estate for murder, 
and his children thereby become vagabonds, 
then the blood of the person murdered is said to 
be upon the murderer and upon his children also. 
So the Jews: His blood be on us and on our 
children: let us and our children be punished 
for it. 

"But it may be asked, How can the acts of 
the parent's treason be imputed to his little 
child? — since those acts were quite out of the 
reach of an infant, nor was it possible for him 
to commit them. I answer, 

" Those acts of treason or acts of service are, 
by a common figure, said to be imputed to the 
children, when they suffer or enjoy the conse- 
quences of their father's treason or eminent ser- 
vice ; though the particular actions of treason 
or service could not be practiced by the children. 
This would be easily understood should it occur 
in human history. And why not when it occurs 
in the sacred writings ? 

"Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience, 
to a law, or for the legal result of such an act : 
that is, the guilt, or liableness to punishment. 
Now, when we say the sin of a traitor is im- 
puted to his children, we do not mean that the act 
of the father is charged upon the child; but 
that the guilt or liableness to punishment is so 
transferred to him that he suffers banishment or 
poverty on account of it. 

" Thus the sin of Achan was so imputed to his 
children, that they were all stoned on account 
of it, Josh. vii. 24. In like manner the cove- 
tousness of Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, 
2 Kings v. 27 : when God by his prophet pro- 
nounced that the leprosy should cleave unto him 
and to his seed for ever. 

"The Scriptures, both of the Old and Now 
Testaments, use the words sin and iniquity (both 
in Hebrew and Greek) to signify not only 
the criminal actions themselves, but also the 
result and consequences of those actions, that 
is, the guilt or liableness to punishment; and 
sometimes the punishment itself, whether it fall 
upon the original criminal, or upon others on his 
account. 

"Indeed, when sin or righteousness is said 
to be imputed to any man, on account of what 
himself hath done, the words usually denote 
both the good or evil actions themselves, and 
the logal result of them. But when the sin or 



390 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



righteousness of one person is said to be imputed 
to another, then generally those words mean 
only the result thereof: that is, a liableness to 
punishment on the one hand, and to reward on 
the other. 

"But let us say what we will, in order to 
confine the sense of the imputation of sin and 
righteousness to the legal result, the reward or 
punishment of good or evil actions : let us ever 
so explicitly deny the imputation of the actions 
themselves to others, still Dr. Taylor will level 
almost all his arguments against the imputation 
of the actions themselves, and then triumph in 
having demolished what we never built, and in 
refuting what we never asserted." 

In the sense, then, above given, we may 
safely contend for the imputation of Adam's 
sin ; and this agrees precisely with the Apostle 
Paul, who speaks of the imputation of sin to 
those who "had not sinned after the similitude 
of Adam's transgression ;" that is, to all who 
lived between Adam and Moses, and, conse- 
quently, to infants who personally had not 
offended; and also declares that "by one 
man's disobedience many were made, consti- 
tuted, accounted, and dealt with as sinners," 
and treated as though they themselves had 
actually sinned; for that this is his sense is 
clear from what follows, "so by the obedience 
of one shall many be made righteous," — con- 
stituted, accounted, and dealt with as such, 
though not actually righteous, but, in fact, par- 
doned criminals. The first consequence, then, 
of this imputation is the death of the body, to 
which all the descendants of Adam are made 
liable, and that on account of the sin of Adam — 
"through the offence of one many are dead." 
But though this is the first, it is far from being 
the only consequence. For, as throughout the 
apostle's reasoning in the fifth chapter of the 
Epistle to the Romans, to which reference has 
been made, "the gift," "the free gift," "the 
gift by grace," mean one and the same thing, 
even the whole benefit given by the abounding 
grace of God, through the obedience of Christ; 
and as these verses are evidently parallel to 
1 Cor. xv. 22, "For as in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive," "it follows 
that dying and being made alive, in the latter 
passage, do not refer to the body only, but 
that dying implies all the evils, temporal and 
spiritual, which are derived from Adam's sin, 
and being made alive, all the blessings which are 
derived from Christ in time and in eternity." — 
Wesley on Original Sin. 

The second consequence is, therefore, death 
spiritual — that moral state which arises from the 
withdrawment of that intercourse of God with 



[PART II. 

the human soul, in consequence of its becoming 
polluted, and of that influence upon it which is 
the only source and spring of the right and 
vigorous direction and employment of its powers 
in which its rectitude consists; a deprivation, 
from which a depravation consequently and neces- 
sarily follows. This, we have before seen, was 
included in the original threatening ; and if Adam 
was a public person, a representative, it has 
passed on to his descendants, who, in their 
natural state, are therefore said to be u dead in 
trespasses and sins." Thus it is that the heart 
is deceitful above all things, and desperately 
wicked; and that all evils naturally "proceed 
from it," as corrupt streams from a corrupt 
fountain. 

The third consequence is eternal death, separa- 
tion from God, and endless banishment from his 
glory in a future state. This follows from both 
the above premises — from the federal character 
of Adam, and from the eternal life given by 
Christ being opposed by the apostle to the death 
derived from Adam. The justice of this is 
objected to, a point which will be immediately 
considered ; but it is now sufficient to say, that 
if the making the descendants of Adam liable to 
eternal death because of his offence be unjust, 
the infliction of temporal death is so also : the 
duration of the punishment making no differ- 
ence in the simple question of justice. If pun- 
ishment, whether of loss or of pain, be unjust, 
its measure and duration may be a greater or a 
less injustice ; but it is unjust in every degree. 
If, then, we only confine the hurt we have 
received from Adam to bodily death; if this 
legal result of his transgression only be imputed 
to us, and we are so constituted sinners as to 
become liable to it, we are in precisely the same 
difficulty, as to the equity of the proceeding, as 
when that legal result is extended farther. The 
only way out of this dilemma is that adopted by 
Dr. Taylor, to consider death not as a punish- 
ment, but as a blessing, which involves the 
absurdity of making Deity threaten a benefit as 
a penalty for an offence, which sufficiently refutes 
the notion. 

The objections which have been raised against 
the imputation of Adam's offence, in the extent 
we have stated it, on the ground of the justice 
of the proceeding, are of two kinds. The former 
are levelled not against that scriptural view of 
the case which has just been exhibited, but 
against that repulsive and shocking perversion 
of it which is found in the high Calvinistic creed 
which consigns infants, not elect, to a conscious 
and endless punishment, and that not of loss 
only, but of pain, for this first offence of another. 
The latter springs from regarding the legal part 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



391 



of the whole transaction which affected our first 
parents and their posterity, separately from the 
evangelical provision of mercy which was con- 
current with it, and which included, in like 
manner, both them and their whole race. With 
the high Calvinistic view we have now nothing to 
do. It will stand or fall with the doctrines of 
election and reprobation, as held by that school, 
and these will be examined in their place. The 
latter class of objections now claim our atten- 
tion ; and as to them we observe that, as the 
question relates to the moral government of God, 
if one part of the transaction before us is inti- 
mately and inseparably connected with another 
and collateral procedure, it cannot certainly be 
viewed in its true light but in that connection. 
The redemption of man by Christ was not cer- 
tainly an after- thought brought in upon man's 
apostasy : it was a provision, and when man fell, 
he found justice hand in hand with mercy. 
What are, then, the facts of the whole case? 
For greater clearness, let us take Adam and the 
case of his adult descendants first. All became 
liable to bodily death : here was justice, the end 
of which is to support law, as that supports 
government. By means of the anticipated sacri- 
fice of the Redeemer's atonement, which, as we 
shall in its place show, is an effectual means of 
declaring the justice of God, the sentence is 
reversed, not by exemption from bodily death, 
but by a happy and glorious resurrection. For, 
as this was an act of grace, Almighty God was 
free to choose, speaking humanly, the circum- 
stances under which it should be administered, 
in ordering which the unerring wisdom of God 
had its natural influence. The evil of sin was 
still to be kept visible before the universe for its 
admonition, by the actual infliction of death 
upon all men : the grace was to be manifested in 
reparation of the loss by restoration to immortal- 
ity. Again, God, the fountain of spiritual life, 
forsook the soul of Adam, now polluted by sin, 
and unfit for his residence. He became morally 
dead and corrupt, and, as "that which is born 
of the flesh is flesh," this is the natural state of 
his descendants. Here was justice, a display of the 
evil of sin, and of the penalty which it ever imme- 
diately induces — man forsaken by God, and, thus 
forsaken, a picture to the whole universe of cor- 
ruption and misery, resulting from that departure 
from him which is implied in one sinful act. But 
that spiritual, quickening influence visits him 
from another quarter, and through other means. 
The second Adam "is a quickening Spirit." 
The Holy Spirit is the purchase of his redemp- 
tion, to be given to man, that ho may again in- 
fuso into his corrupted nature the heavenly life, 
and sanctify and regenerate it. Here is the 



mercy. As to a future state, eternal life is pro- 
mised to all men believing in Christ, which 
reverses the sentence of eternal death. Here 
again is the manifestation of mercy. Should 
this be rejected, he stands liable to the whole 
penalty, to the punishment of loss as the natural 
consequence of his corrupted nature, which 
renders him unfit for heaven : to the punishment 
of even pain for the original offence, we may 
also, without injustice, say, as to an adult, whose 
actual transgressions, when the means of deliver- 
ance have bj^en afforded him by Christ, are a con- 
senting to all rebellion against God, and to that 
of Adam himself ; and to the penalty of his own 
actual transgressions, aggravated by his having 
made light of the gospel. Here is the collateral 
display of justice. In all this, it is impossible 
to impeach the equity of the Divine procedure, 
since no man suffers any loss or injury ultimately 
by the sin of Adam, but by his own wilful obsti- 
nacy — the "abounding of grace," by Christ, 
having placed before all men, upon their believ- 
ing, not merely compensation for the loss and 
injury sustained by Adam, but infinitely higher 
blessings, both in kind or degree, than were for- 
feited in him. As to adults, then, the objection 
taken from Divine justice is unsupported. 

We now come to the case of persons dying in 
infancy. The great consideration which leads to 
a solution of this case is found in Romans v. 18 : 
"Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by 
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon 
all men unto justification of life." In these 
words the sin of Adam and the merits of Christ 
are pronounced to be coextensive: the words 
applied to both are precisely the same, "judg- 
ment came upon all men," " the free gift came 
upon all men." If the whole human race be 
meant in the former clause, the whole human 
race is meant in the latter also ; and it follows, 
that as all are injured by the offence of Adam, 
so all are benefited by the obedience of Christ. 
Whatever, therefore, that benefit may be, all 
children dying in infancy must partake of it, or 
there would be a large portion of the human 
race upon whom the "free gift," the effects of 
"the righteousness of one," did not "come," 
which is contrary to the apostle's words. 

This benefit, whatever it might be, did not so 
"come upon all men" as to relieve them imme- 
diately from the sentence of death. This is 
obvious from men being still liable to die, and 
from the existence of a corrupt nature or spirit- 
ual death in all mankind. As this is the ease 
with adults, who grow up from a state of child- 
hood, and who can both trace the OOrruptness of 
their naturo to their earliest years, ami were 



392 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



always liable to bodily death, so, for this reason, 
it did not come immediately upon children, 
whether they die in infancy or not. For there 
is no more reason to conclude that those children 
who die in infancy were born with a pure 
nature, than they who live to manhood ; and the 
fact of their being born liable to death, a part 
of the penalty, is sufficient to show that they 
were born under the whole malediction. 

The "free gift," howeYer, which has come 
upon all men by the righteousness of one, is said 
to be " unto justification of life," the full reversal 
of the penalty of death ; and, by " the abundance 
of grace, and of the gift of righteousness," the 
benefit extends to the " reigning in life by one, 
Jesus Christ." If the "free gift" is so given to 
all men that this is the end for which it is 
given, then is this "justification of life," and this 
"reigning in life by Jesus Christ," as truly 
within the reach of infants dying in infancy, as 
within the reach of adults living to years of 
choice. This "free gift" is bestowed upon "' all 
men." elc, in order to justification of life: it 
follows, then, that, in the case of infants, this 
gift may be connected with the end for which it 
was given, as well as in the case of adults, or it 
would be given in vain, and in fact be, in no 
sense whatever, a gift or benefit, standing op- 
posed, in its result, to condemnation and death. 

Now we know clearly by what means the "free 
gift," which is bestowed in order to justification 
of life, (that is, that act of God by which a 
sinner, under sentence of death, is adjudged to 
life.) is connected with that end in the case of 
adults. The gift "comes upon them," in its 
effects, very largely, independent of any thing 
they do — in the long-suffering of God : in the 
instructions of the gospel: the warnings of 
ministers : the corrective dispensations of Pro- 
vidence : above all, in preventing grace, and the 
mea of the Holy Spirit removing so much of 
their spiritual death as to excite in them various 
degrees of religious feeling, and enabling them 
to seek the face of God, to turn at his rebuke, 
and, by improving that grace, to repent and 
believe the gospel. In a word, "justification of 
life" is offered them : nay, more, it is pressed 
upon them, and they fail of it only by rejecting 
it. If they yield and embrace the offer, then 
the end for which "the free gift came" upon 
them is attained — "justification of life." 

As to infants, they are not, indeed, born justi- 
fied and regenerate : so that to say that original 
sin is taken away, as to infants, by Christ, is not 
the correct view of the case, for the reasons be- 
fore given : but they are all born under the " free 
gift." the effects of the "righteousness" of one, 
which extended to "all men;" and this free gift 



[PART n. 

is bestowed on them in order to justification of 
life, the adjudging of the condemned to live. 
All the mystery, therefore, in the case arises 
1 from this, that in adults we see the free gift con- 
nected with its end, actual justification, by acts 
of their own, repentance and faith ; but as to 
infants, we are not informed by what process 
justification, with its attendant blessings, is ac- 
tually bestowed, though the words of the apostle 
are express that, through "the righteousness of 
one," they are entitled to it. Xor is it surprising 
that this process should be hidden from us, since 
the gospel was written for adults, though the 
benefit of it is designed for all : and the know- 
ledge of this work of God, in the spirit of an 
infant, must presuppose an acquaintance with 
: the properties of the human soul, which is, in 
fact, out of our reach. If. however, an infant is 
j not capable of a voluntary acceptance of the 
benefit of the "free gift," neither, on the other 
hand, is it capable of a voluntary rejection of it ; 
and it is by rejecting it that adults perish. If 
much of the benefit of this "free gift" comes 
\ upon us as adults, independent of our seeking 
it, and if, indeed, the very power and inclination 
to seek justification of life is thus prevenient, 
: and in the highest sense free, it follows, by the 
i same rule of the Divine conduct, that the Holy 
Spirit may be given to children ; that a Divine 
. and an effectual influence may be exerted on 
; them, which, meeting with no voluntary resist- 
ance, shall cure the spiritual death and corrupt 
tendency of their nature : and all this without 
, supposing any great difference in the principle 
of the administration of this grace in their case 
: and that of adults. But the different circum- 
stances of children dying in their infancy, and 
i adults, proves also that a different administra- 
; tion of the same grace, which is freely bestowed 
| upon all, must take place. Adults are personal 
offenders, infants are not : for the former, con- 
: fession of sin, repentance, and the trust of per- 
i sons consciously perishing for their transgres- 
! sions, are appropriate to their circumstances, 
' but not to those of the latter : and the very wis- 
dom of God may assure us that, in prescribing 
the terms of salvation, that is, the means by 
which the "free gift" shall pass to its issue, jus- 
tification of life, the circumstances of the per- 
sons must be taken into account. The reason of 
• pardon, in every case, is not repentance, not 
faith, not any thing done by man. but the merit 
of the sacrifice of Christ. Repentance and faith 
are, it is true, in the case of adults, a sine qua 
non, but in no sense the meritorious cause. The 
reasons of their being attached to the promise, 
as conditions, are nowhere given, but they are 
nowhere enforced as such, except on adults. If, 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



393 



in adults, we see the meritorious cause working 
in conjunction with instrumental causes, they are 
capable of what is required ; but when we see, 
even in adults, that, independent of their own 
acts, the meritorious cause is not inert, but fruit- 
ful in vital influence and gracious dealing, we see 
such a separation of the operation of the grand 
meritorious cause, and the subordinate instru- 
mental causes, as to prove that the benefits of 
the death of Christ are not, in every degree, and 
consequently, on the same principle, not in every 
case, conferred under the restraints of conditions. 
So certainly is infant salvation attested by the 
Scriptures ; so explicitly are we told that the 
free gift is come upon all men to justification of 
life, and that none can come short of this bless- 
ing but those who reject it. 

But there is another class of instrumental 
causes to be taken into the account in the case 
of children, though they arise not out of their 
personal acts. The first and greatest, and gene- 
ral one, is the intercession of Christ himself, 
which can never be fruitless ; and that children 
are the objects of his intercession is certain, both 
from his office as the intercessor of all mankind, 
the "mediator between God and men," that is, 
all men, and from his actually praying for child- 
ren in the days of his abode on earth. "He took 
them up in his arms and blessed them ;" which 
benediction was either in the form of prayer, or 
it was authoritative, which makes the case still 
stronger. As to their future state, he seems also 
to open a sufficiently encouraging view, when he 
declares that " of such is the kingdom of heaven ;" 
for, whether we understand this of future feli- 
city, or of the Church, the case is settled: in 
neither case can they be under wrath, and liable 
to condemnation. 

Other instrumental causes of the communica- 
tion of this benefit to infants, wherever the or- 
dinances of the Christian Church are established, 
and used in faith, are the prayers of parents, 
and baptism in the name of Christ — means which 
cannot be without their effect, both as to infants 
who die and those who live ; and which, as God's 
own ordinances, he cannot but honor, in differ- 
ent degrees, it may be, as to those who live and 
those whom he intends to call to himself ; but 
which are still means of grace, and channels of 
saving influence; or they are dead forms, ill be- 
coming that which is so eminently a dispensa- 
tion, not of the letter, but of the Spirit. 

The injustice, then, alleged as implicated in 
the doctrine of original sin, when considered in 
this its whole and scriptural view, entirely van- 
ishes ; and, at the same time, the evil of sin is 
manifested, and the justice also of the Lawgiver, 
for mercy comes not by relaxing the hold of jus- 



tice. That still has its full manifestation in the 
exaction of vicarious obedience to death, even 
the death of the cross, from the second Adam, 
who made himself the federal head of fallen men, 
and gave "justification unto life" only by his 
submission to "judgment unto condemnation." 

Having thus established the import of the 
death threatened as the penalty of Adam's trans- 
gression, to include corporal, moral, or spiritual, 
and eternal death ; and showed that the sentence 
included also the whole of his posterity, our next 
step is to ascertain that moral condition in which 
men are actually born into the world, notwith- 
standing that gracious provision which is made 
in Christ for human redemption. On this the 
testimony of Scripture is so explicit and ample, 
and its humbling representations are so borne 
out by consciousness and by experience, that it 
may well be matter of surprise that the natural 
innocence of human nature should ever have had 
its advocates, at least among those who profess 
to receive the Bible as the word of God. In en- 
tering upon the subject of this corruption of 
human nature, it must first be stated that there 
are several facts of history and experience to be 
accounted for ; and that they must all be taken 
into account in the different theories which are 
advocated. 

1. That in all ages, great and even general 
wickedness has prevailed among those large 
masses of men which are called nations. 

So far as it relates to the immediate descend- 
ants of Adam before the flood ; to all the nations 
of the highest antiquity ; to the Jews throughout 
every period of their history, down to their final 
dispersion ; and to the empires and other states 
whose history is involved in theirs ; we have the 
historical evidence of Scripture, and much col- 
lateral evidence also from their own historians. 

To what does this evidence go, but, to say the 
least, the actual depravity of the majority of 
mankind in all these ages, and among all these 
nations ? As to the race before the flood, a mur- 
derer sprang up in the first family, and the 
world became increasingly corrupt, until "God 
saw that. the wickedness of man was great, and 
that every imagination of the thoughts of his 
heart was only evil continually ;" " that all flesh 
had corrupted his way upon the earth ;" and that 
"the earth was filled with violence through 
them." Only Noah was found righteous before 
God; and because of the universal wickedness, 
a wickedness which spurned all warning, and re- 
sisted all correction, the flood was brought upon 
the world of the ?//>//< ><////, as a testimony of Divine 
anger. 

The same courso of increasing wiokedness is 
exhibited in the sacred records as taking place 



394 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



after the flood. The building of the tower of ; 
Babel was a wicked act, done by general concert, 
before the division of nations: this we know 
from its haying excited the Divine displeasure, 
though we know not in what the particular crime 
consisted. After the division of nations, the his- 
tory of the times of Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, 
and Moses, sufficiently show that idolatry, injus- 
tice, oppression, and gross sensualities, charac- 
terized the people of Canaan, Egypt, and every j 
other country mentioned in the Mosaic narrative. 

The obstinate inclination of the Israelites to 
idolatry, through all ages to the Babylonish cap- 
tivity, and the general prevalence of vice among 
men, is acknowledged in every part of the Old 
Testament, Their moral wickedness, after their 
return from Babylon, when they no longer prac- 
ticed idolatry, and were, therefore, delivered 
from that most fruitful source of crime, may be 
collected from the writers of the Old Testament 
who lived after that event; and their general 
corruption in the time of our Lord and his apos- 
tles stands forth with disgusting prominence in 
their writings and in the writings of Josephus, 
their own historian. 

As to all other ancient nations, of whom we 
have any history, the accounts agree in stating 
the general prevalence of practical immorality 
and of malignant and destructive passions ; and 
if we had no such acknowledgments from them- 
selves ; if no such reproaches were mutually cast 
upon each other ; if history were not, as indeed 
it is, a record of crimes, in action and in detail ; 
and if poets, moralists, and satirists did not all 
give their evidence, by assuming that men were 
influenced by general principles of vice, express- 
ing themselves in particular modes in different 
ages, the following great facts would prove the 
case : — 

The fact of general religious error, and 
that in the very fundamental principles of re- 
ligion, such as the existence of one only God ; 
which universal corruption of doctrine among 
all the ancient nations mentioned above, shows 
both indifference to truth and hostility against 
it, and therefore proves, at least, the general cor- 
ruption of men's hearts, of which even indiffer- 
ence to religious truth is a sufficient indication. 

The universal prevalence of idolatry, which 
not only argues great debasement of intellect, 
but deep wickedness of heart, because, in all 
ages, idolatry has been more or less immoral in 
its influence, and generally grossly so, by leading 
directly to sanguinary and impure practices. 

The prevalence of superstition wherever 
idolatry has prevailed, and often when that has 
not existed, is another proof. The essence of 
this evil is the transfer of fear and hope from 



God to real or imaginary creatures and things, 
and so is a renunciation of allegiance to God, as 
the Governor of the world, and a practical denial 
either of his being or his providence. 

Aggressive wars, in the guilt of which all na- 
tions and all uncivilized tribes have been, in all 
ages, involved, and which necessarily suppose 
hatred, revenge, cruelty, injustice, and ambition. 

The accounts formerly given of the innocence 
and harmlessness of the Hindoos, Chinese, the 
inhabitants of the South Sea Islands, and other 
parts of the world, are now found to be total 
mistakes or wilful falsehoods. 

In all heathen nations, idolatry, superstition, 
fraud, oppression, and vices of almost every de- 
scription, show the general state of society to be 
exceedingly and even destructively corrupt ; and 
though Mohammedan nations escape the charge 
of idolatry, yet pride, avarice, oppression, in- 
justice, cruelty, sensuality, and gross supersti- 
tion, are all prevalent among them. 

The case of Christian nations, though in them 
immorality is more powerfully checked than in 
any other, and many bright and influential ex- 
amples of the highest virtue are found among 
their inhabitants, sufficiently proves that the ma- 
jority are corrupt and vicious in their habits. 
The impiety and profaneness ; the neglect of the 
fear and worship of God ; the fraud and villany 
continually taking place in the commerce of man- 
kind ; the intemperance of various kinds which 
is found among all classes ; the oppression of the 
poor ; and many other evils, are in proof of this ; 
and, indeed, we may confidently conclude, that 
no advocate of the natural innocence of man will 
contend that the majority of men, even in this 
country, are actually virtuous in their external 
conduct, and much less that the fear and love of 
God, and habitual respect to his will, which are, 
indeed, the only principles which can be deemed 
to constitute a person righteous, influence the 
people at large, or even any very large propor- 
tion of them. 

The fact, then, is established, which was before 
laid down, that men in all ages and in all places 
have, at least, been generally wicked. 

2. The second fact to be accounted for is, the 
strength of that tendency to the wickedness which 
we have seen to be general. 

The strength of the corrupting principle, what- 
ever it may be, is marked by two circumstances : 

The first is, the greatness of the crimes to 
which men have abandoned themselves. 

If the effects of the corrupt principle had only 
been manifested in trifling errors and practical 
infirmities, a softer view of the moral condition 
in which man is born into the world might, 
probably, have been admitted ; but in the cata- 



CH. XVIII.] 

logue of human crimes, in all ages, and among 
great numbers of all nations, but more especially 
among those nations where there has been the 
least control of religion, and, therefore, where 
the natural dispositions of men have exhibited 
themselves under the simplest and most convin- 
cing evidence, we find frauds, oppressions, faith- 
lessness, barbarous cruelties and murders, un- 
feeling oppressions, falsehoods, every kind of 
uncleanness, uncontrolled anger, deadly hatred 
and revenge, as to their fellow-creatures, and 
proud and scornful rebellion against God. 

The second is, the number and influence of the 
checks and restraints against which this tide of 
wickedness has urged on its almost resistless and 
universal course. 

It has opposed itself against the law of God, 
in some degree found among all men ; conse- 
quently, against the checks and remorse of con- 
science : against a settled conviction of the evil 
of most of the actions indulged in, which is shown 
by their having been blamed in others (at least 
whenever any have suffered by them) by those 
who themselves have been in the habit of com- 
mitting them. 

Against the restraints of human laws, and the 
authority of magistrates ; for, in all ancient 
states, the moral corruption continued to spread 
until they were politically dissolved, society not 
being able to hold itself together, in consequence 
of the excessive height to which long indulgence 
had raised passion and appetite. 

Against the provision made to check human 
vices by that judicial act of the Governor of the 
world by which he shortened the life of man, 
and rendered it uncertain, and, at the longest, 
brief. 

Against another provision made by the Gover- 
nor of the world, in part with the same view, i. e., 
the dooming of man to earn his sustenance by 
labor, and thus providing for the occupation of 
the greater portion of time in what was innocent, 
and rendering the means of sensual indulgences 
more scanty, and the opportunities of actual im- 
morality more limited. 

Against the restraints put upon vice, by ren- 
dering it, by the constitution and the very nature 
of things, the source of misery of all kinds and 
degrees, national, domestic, personal, mental and 
bodily. 

Against the terrible judgments which God has, 
in all ages, brought upon wicked nations and no- 
torious individuals, many of which visitations 
were known and acknowledged to bo the signal 
manifestations of his displeasure against their 
vices. 

Against those counteractive and reforming in- 
fluences of the revelations of the will and mercy 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



395 



of God, which at different times have been vouch- 
safed to the world : as, against the light and in- 
fluence of the patriarchal religion before the 
giving of the law : against the Mosaic institute, 
and the warnings of prophets among the Jews : 
against the religious knowledge which was trans- 
mitted from them among heathen nations con- 
nected with their history, at different periods : 
against the influence of Christianity when intro- 
duced into the Roman empire, and when trans- 
mitted to the Gothic nations, by all of whom it 
was grossly corrupted; and against the control 
of the same Divine religion in our own country, 
where it is exhibited in its purity, and in which 
the most active endeavors are adopted to enlighten 
and correct society. 

It is impossible to consider the number and 
power of these checks without acknowledging, 
that those principles in human nature which give 
rise to the mass of moral evil which actually ex- 
ists, and has always existed since men began to 
multiply upon the earth, are most powerful and 
formidable in their tendency. 

3. The third fact is, that the seeds of the vices 
which exist in society may be discovered in child- 
ren in their earliest years — selfishness, envy, 
pride, resentment, deceit, lying, and often cruelty ; 
and so much is this the case, so explicitly is this 
acknowledged by all, that it is the principal ob- 
ject of the moral branch of education to restrain 
and correct those evils, both by coercion, and by 
diligently impressing upon children, as their fa- 
culties open, the evil and mischief of all such 
affections and tendencies. 

4. The fourth fact is, that every man is con- 
scious of a natural tendency to many evils. 

These tendencies are different in degree and in 
kind. 1 In some they move to ambition, and pride, 
and excessive love of honor ; in others, to anger, 
revenge, and implacableness ; in others, to cow- 
ardice, meanness, and fear ; in others, to avarice, 
care, and distrust ; in others, to sensuality and 
prodigality. But where is the man who has not 
his peculiar constitutional tendency to some evil 
in one of these classes ? But there are, also, 
evil tendencies common to all. These are, to love 
creatures more than God ; to forget God ; to be 
indifferent to our obligations to him ; to regard 
the opinions of men more than the approbation 
of God ; to be more influenced by the visiblo 
things which surround us than by the invisible 
God, whose eye is ever upon us, and by that in- 
visible state to which we are all hastening. 

It is the constant practice of those who advo- 
cate the natural innocence of man, to lower the 



1 "Omnia in omnibus vitii sunt; sod non omnia in sin- 
gulis oxtant."— Skneca. 



396 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



standard of the Divine law under -which man is 
placed; and to this they are necessarily driven, 
in order to give some plausibility to their opin- 
ions. They must palliate the conduct of men ; 
and this can only be done by turning moral evils 
into natural ones, or into innocent infirmities, 
and by so stating the requisitions made upon our 
obedience by our Maker, as to make them con- 
sistent with many irregularities. But we have 
already shown that the love of God requires our 
supreme love and our entire obedience ; and it 
will, therefore, follow, that whatever is contrary 
to love and to entire subjection, whether in prin- 
ciple, in thought, in word, or in action, is sin- 
ful ; and if so, then the tendency to evil, in every 
man, must, and on these premises will, be al- 
lowed. Nor will it serve any purpose to say, that 
man's weakness and infirmity is such that he can- 
not yield this perfect obedience ; for means of 
sanctifi cation and supernatural aid are provided 
for him in the gospel ; and what is it that ren- 
ders him indifferent to them but the corruptness 
of his heart ? 

Besides, this very plea allows all we contend 
for. It allows that the law is lowered, because 
of human inability to observe it and to resist 
temptation ; but this itself proves (were we even 
to admit the fiction of this lowering of the requi- 
sitions of the law) that man is not now in the 
state in which he was created, or it would not 
have been necessary to bring the standard of 
obedience down to his impaired condition. 

5. The fifth fact is, that, even after a serious 
wish and intention has been formed in men to re- 
nounce these views, and to "live soberly, right- 
eously, and godly," as becomes creatures made 
to glorify God, and on their trial for eternity, 
strong and constant resistance is made by the 
passions, appetites, and inclinations of the heart 
at every step of the attempt. 

This is so clearly a matter of universal expe- 
rience, that, in the moral writings of every age 
and country, and in the very phrases and terms 
of all languages, virtue is associated with diffi- 
culty, and represented under the notion of a war- 
fare. Virtue has always, therefore, been repre- 
sented as the subject of acquirement ; and resist- 
ance of evil as being necessary to its preservation. 
It has been made to consist in self-rule, which is, 
of course, restraint upon opposite tendencies : 
the mind is said to be subject to diseases, 1 and 
the remedy for these diseases is placed in some- 
thing outward to itself — in religion, among in- 
spired men; in philosophy, among the heathen. 2 

1 "Hac conditione nati sumus, animalia obnoxia non 
paucioribus animi quam corporis morbis." — Seneca. 

2 "Videamus quanta sint quae a philosophia remedia 
morbis auimorum adbibeantur; est enim quaedam medi. 
otna certe," etc. — Ciceko. 



[part II. 

This constant struggle against the rules and 
resolves of virtue has been acknowledged in all 
ages, and among Christian nations more espe- 
cially, where, just as the knowledge of what the 
Divine law requires is diffused, the sense of the 
difficulty of approaching to its requisitions is 
felt; and in proportion as the efforts made to 
conform to it are sincere, is the despair which 
arises from repeated and constant defeats, when 
the aid of Divine grace is not called in. "0 
wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me 
from the body of this death?" 

These five facts of universal history and ex- 
perience, as they cannot be denied, and as it 
would be most absurd to discuss the moral con- 
dition of human nature without any reference to 
them, must be accounted for ; and it shall now 
be our business to inquire, whether they can be 
best explained on the hypothesis drawn from the 
Scripture, that man is by nature totally corrupt 
and degenerate, and of himself incapable of any 
good thing ; or on the hypothesis of man's na- 
tural goodness, or, at worst, his natural indiffer- 
ence equally to good and to evil : notions which 
come to us ab initio with this disadvantage, that 
they have no text of Scripture to adduce to afford 
them any plausible support whatever. 

The testimony of Scripture is decidedly in 
favor of the first hypothesis. 

It has already been established, that the full 
penalty of Adam's offence passed upon his pos- 
terity ; and, consequently, that part of it which 
consists in the spiritual death which has been 
before explained. A full provision to meet this 
case is, indeed, as we have seen, made in the gos- 
pel ; but that does not affect the state in which 
men are born. It is a cure for an actually exist- 
ing disease brought by us into the world ; for, 
were not this the case, the evangelical institution 
would be one of prevention, not of remedy, under 
which light it is always represented. 

If, then, we are all born in a state of spiritual 
death; that is, without that vital influence of 
God upon our faculties which we have seen to 
be necessary to give them a right, a holy tend- 
ency, and to maintain them in it ; and if that is 
restored to man by a dispensation of grace and 
favor, it follows that, in his natural state, he is 
born with sinful propensities, and that by nature 
he is capable, in his own strength, of "no good 
thing." 

With this the scriptural account agrees. 

It is probable, though great stress need not be 
laid upon it, that when it is said, Gen. v. 3, that 
"Adam begat a son in his own likeness," 
there is an implied opposition between the like- 
ness of God, in which Adam was made, and the 
likeness of Adam, in which his son was begotten. 



CII. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



397 



It is not said that he begat a son in the likeness 
of God : a very appropriate expression if Adam 
had not fallen, and if human nature had sus- 
tained, in consequence, no injury; and such a 
declaration was apparently called for, had this 
been the case, to show, what would have been a 
very important fact, that notwithstanding the 
personal delinquency of Adam, yet human nature 
itself had sustained no deterioration, but was 
propagated without corruption. On the contrary, 
it is said that he begat a son in his own likeness, 
which, probably, was mentioned on purpose to 
exclude the idea that the image of God was 
hereditary in man. 

In Gen. vi. 5, it is stated, as the cause of the 
flood, that " God saw that the wickedness of man 
was great in the earth, and that every imagina- 
tion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil 
continually." Here, it is true that the actual 
moral state of the antediluvians may only be 
spoken of, and that the text does not directly 
prove the doctrine of hereditary depravity ; yet 
is the actual wickedness of man traced up to the 
heart as its natural source, in a manner which 
seems to intimate that the doctrine of the natural 
corruption of man was held by the writer, and 
by that his mode of expression was influenced. 
"The heart of man is here put for his soul. 
This God had formed with a marvellous thinking 
power. But so is his soul debased, that every 
imagination, figment, formation of the thoughts 
of it, is evil, only evil, continually evil. What- 
ever it forms within itself as a thinking power, 
is an evil formation. If all men's actual wicked- 
ness sprung from the evil formation of their 
corrupt heart, and if, consequently, they were 
sinners from the birth, so are all others likewise." 
— Hebden. 

That this was the theological sentiment held 
and taught by Moses, and implied even in this 
passage, is made very clear by Gen. viii. 21, "I 
will not again curse the ground any more for 
man's sake ; for the imagination of man's heart 
is evil from his youth ; neither will I again smite 
any more every living thing." The sense of 
which plainly is, that notwithstanding the wicked- 
ness of mankind, though they sin from their 
childhood, yet would he not, on that account, 
again destroy "every living thing." Here it is 
to be observed, 1. That the words are spoken as 
soon as Noah came forth from the ark, and, 
therefore, after the antediluvian race of actual 
and flagrant transgressors had perished, and 
before the family of Noah had begun to multiply 
upon the earth — when, in faet, there were no 
human beings upon earth but righteous Noah and 
Jiis family. 2. That they are spoken of "man" 
As man; that is, of human nature, and, con- 



sequently, of Noah himself and the persons 
saved with him in the ark. 3. That it is affirmed 
of man, that is, of mankind, that the imagina- 
tion of the heart "is evil from his youth." Now 
the term "imagination" includes the thoughts, 
affections, and inclinations ; and the word "youth" 
the whole time from the birth, the earliest age 
of man. This passage, therefore, affirms the 
natural and hereditary tendency of man to evil. 

The book of Job, which embodies the patri- 
archal theology, gives ample testimony to this as 
the faith of those ancient times. Job xi. 12 : 
"Vain man would be wise, though man be born 
like a wild ass's colt" — fierce, untractable, and 
scarcely to be subjected. This is the case from 
his birth : it is affirmed of man, and is equally 
applicable to every age : it is his natural condi- 
tion ; he is "born," literally, "the colt of a wild 
ass." 

"Man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly 
upward," Job v. 7 ; that is, he is inevitably sub- 
jected to trouble : this is the law of his state in 
this world, as fixed and certain as one of the 
laws of nature. The proof from this passage is 
inferential, but very decisive. Unless man is 
born a sinner, it is not to be accounted for that 
he should be born to trouble. Pain and death 
are the consequences only of sin, and absolutely 
innocent beings must be exempt from them. 

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an un- 
clean ?" Job xiv. 4. The word thing is supplied 
by our translators, but person is evidently under- 
stood. Cleanness and uncleanness, in the lan- 
guage of Scripture, signify sin and holiness ; and 
the text clearly asserts the natural impossibility 
of any man being born sinless, because he is 
produced by guilty and defiled parents. 

"What is man, that he should be clean; and 
he which is born of a woman, that he should be 
righteous?" Job xv. 14. The same doctrine is 
here affirmed as in the preceding text, only more 
fully, and it may be taken as an explanation of 
the former, which was, perhaps, a proverbial ex- 
pression. The rendering of the LXX. is here 
worthy of notice ; for though it does not agree 
with the present Hebrew text, it strongly marks 
the sentiments of the ancient Jews on the point 
in question. "Who shall be clean from tilth? 
Not one, even though his life on earth be a single 
day." 

Psalm li. 5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity] 
and in sin did my mother coneeive me." What 
possible sense can be given to this passage on 
the hypothesis of man's natural innoeonee? It 
is in vain to render the first clause. " 1 was 
brought forth in iniquity," for nothing is gained 
by it. David charges nothing upon his mother. 
of whom he is not speaking, but of himself: he 



398 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



was conceived, or, if it please better, was born 
a sinner. And if the rendering of the latter clause 
were allowed, which yet has no authority, "in 
sin did my mother nurse me," still no progress 
is made in getting quit of its testimony to the 
moral corruption of children, for it is the child 
only which is nursed, and if that be allowed, 
natural depravity is allowed, depravity before 
reasonable choice, which is the point in question. 

Psalm lviii. 3, 4: "The wicked are estranged 
from the womb : they go astray as soon as they 
are born, speaking lies." They are alienated 
from the womb : ' ' alienated from the life of God, 
from the time of their coming into the world." 
(Wesley.) "Speaking lies:" they show a 
tendency to speak lies as soon as they are 
capable of it, which shows the existence of a 
natural principle of falsehood. 

Proverbs xxii. 15, and xxix. 15 : "Foolishness 
is bound in the heart of a child ; but the rod of 
correction shall drive it far from him." "The 
rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to 
himself bringeth his mother to shame." " These 
passages put together are a plain testimony of 
the inbred corruption of young children. ' Fool- 
ishness,' in the former, is not barely 'appetite,' 
or a want of the knowledge attainable by in- 
struction, as some have said. Neither of these 
deserves that sharp correction recommended. 
But it is an indisposedness to what is good, and 
a strong propensity to evil. This foolishness ' is 
bound in the heart of a child:' it is rooted in 
his inmost nature. It is, as it were, fastened to 
him by strong cords: so the original word signi- 
fies. From this corruption of the heart in every 
child it is that ' the rod of correction ' is neces- 
sary to give him wisdom; hence it is that a 
child left to himself, without correction, < brings 
his mother to shame.' If a child were born 
equally inclined to virtue and vice, why should 
the wise man speak of foolishness or wickedness 
as fastened so closely to his heart ? And why 
should the rod and reproof be so necessary for 
him ? These texts, therefore, are another clear 
proof of the corruption of human nature." — 
Hebden. 

The quotation of Psalm xiv. 2, 3, by the 
Apostle Paul, in Romans iii. 10, etc., is also an 
important scriptural proof of the universal moral 
corruption of mankind : " The Lord looked down 
from heaven upon the children of men, to see if 
there were any that did understand, and seek 
God. They are all gone aside, they are alto- 
gether become filthy : there is none that doeth 
good, no, not one." When the Psalmist affirms 
this of the children of men, it is fair to conclude 
that he is speaking of all men, and of human 
nature as originating actual depravity ; and it is, 



[PART II. 

indeed, obvious, from the context, that he is thus 
accounting for Atheism^and other evils, the pre- 
valence of which he laments. But, as the 
apostle quotes this passage and the parallel one 
in the 53d Psalm as scriptural proofs of the uni- 
versal corruption of mankind, the sense of the 
Psalmist is fixed by his authority, and cannot be 
questioned. All, indeed, that the opponents of 
this interpretation can say is, that in the same 
psalm the Psalmist speaks also of righteous per- 
sons — " God is in the generation of the righteous;" 
but that is nothing to the purpose, seeing that 
those who contend for the universal corruption 
of mankind, allow, also, that a remedy has been 
provided for the evil ; and that by its application 
some, in every age, have been made righteous 
who were originally and naturally sinful. In 
fact, it could not be said, with respect to men's 
actual moral conduct in that, or probably in any 
age, that "not one" was "righteous;" but in 
every age it may be said that not one is so 
originally, or by nature : so that the passage is 
not to be explained on the assumption that the 
inspired writer is speaking only of the practice 
of mankind in his own times. 

Of the same kind are all those passages which 
speak of what is morally evil as the character- 
istic and distinguishing mark, not of any indi- 
vidual, not of any particular people, living in 
some one age or part of the world, but of man, 
of human nature ; and especially those which 
make sinfulness the natural state of that part 
of the human race who have not undergone that 
moral renovation which is the fruit of a Divine 
operation in the heart, a work ascribed particu- 
larly to the Holy Spirit. Of these texts the 
number is very great, and it adds also to the 
strength of their evidence that the subject is 
often mentioned incidentally, and by way of 
illustration and argument in support of some- 
thing else, and must, therefore, be taken to be 
an acknowledged and settled opinion among the 
sacred writers, both of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, and one which neither they nor those 
to whom they spoke or wrote questioned or dis- 
puted. 

" Cursed," says the Prophet Jeremiah, "be the 
man that trusteth in man." Why in man, if he 
were not by nature unworthy of trust ? On the 
scheme of man's natural innocence, it would 
surely have been more appropriate to say, 
Cursed be he that trusteth indiscriminately 
in men, some of whom may have become cor- 
rupt ; but here human nature itself, man, in the 
abstract, is held up to suspicion and caution. 
"The heart," proceeds the same prophet, "is 
deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked : 
who can know it?" which is the reason adduced 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



399 



for the caution preceding against trusting in 
man. It is precisely in the same way that our 
Lord designates human nature when he affirms 
that "from within, out of the heart, proceed 
evil thoughts, adulteries, murders, etc. : all 
these things come from within, and defile the 
man." This representation would not be true 
on the scheme of natural innocence. All these 
things would come from without, not from within, 
as their original source. The heart must first 
be corrupted by outward circumstances before 
it could be the corrupter. 

But to proceed with instances of the more in- 
I cidental references to the fault and disease of 
man's very nature, with which the Scriptures 
abound. " How much more abominable and 
filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water?" 
Job xv. 16. "Madness is in the heart of the 
sons of men, while they live." Eccles. ix. 3. 
"But they like men have transgressed the cove- 
nant." Hos. vi. 7. "If ye, being evil, know how 
to give good gifts unto your children." Matt, 
vii. 11. "Thou savorest not the things that 
be of God; but the things that be of men." 
Matt. xvi. 23. "Are ye not carnal, and walk as 
men?" 1 Cor. iii. 3. "That he no longer 
should live the rest of his time in the lusts of 
men; but to the will of God." 1 Peter iv. 2. 
" We are of God, and the whole world lieth in 
wickedness." 1 John v. 19. "Except a man 
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of 
Gob." John iii. 8. " That ye put off the old 
man, and be renewed in the spirit of your 
mind; and that ye put on the new man." Eph. 
iv. 22-24. 

The above texts are to be considered as speci- 
mens of the manner in which the sacred writers 
speak of the subject, rather than as approaching 
to an enumeration of the passages in which 
the same sentiments are found in great variety 
of expression, and which are adduced on various 
occasions. They are, however, sufficient to 
show that man, and the heart of man, and the 
moral nature of man, are spoken of by them in a 
way not to be reconciled to the notion of their 
purity, or even their indifference to good and 
evil. On two parts of the New Testament, how- 
ever, which irresistibly fix the whole of this 
evidence in favor of the opinion of the universal 
Church of Christ, in all ages, our remarks may 
be somewhat more extended. The first is our 
Lord's discourse with Nicodcmus, John iii., in 
which he declares the necessity of a new birth, 
in contradistinction to our natural birth, in 
order to our entrance into the kingdom of God ; 
and lays it down, that the Spirit of God is the 
solo author of this change, and that what is 
born of the flesh cannot alter its nature : it is 



flesh still, and must always remain so, and in 
that state is unfit for heaven. "Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God : that which is born 
of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of 
the Spirit is spirit." Throughout, the New 
Testament, it will be found, that when flesh and 
spirit are, in a moral sense, opposed to each 
other, the one means the corrupt nature and 
habits of men, not sanctified by the gospel: 
the other, either the principle and habit of holi- 
ness in good men, or the Holy Spirit himself, 
who imparts, and constantly nurtures them. 
"I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) 
dwelleth no good thing." Bom. vii. 18. "I 
myself with the mind serve the law of God ; 
but with the flesh, the law of sin." B,om. vii. 
25. "There is, therefore, now no condemna- 
tion to them which are in Christ Jesus, who 
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." 
Bom. viii. 1. "They that are after the flesh do 
mind the things of the flesh ; but they that are 
after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For 
to be carnally -minded is death ; but to be spirit- 
ually-minded is life and peace. Because the 
carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not 
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
be. So, then, they that are in the flesh cannot 
please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in 
the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell 
in you." Bom. viii. 5-9. 

These passages from St. Paul serve to fix 
the meaning of the terms flesh and Spirit, as 
used by the Jews, and as they occur in the dis- 
course of our Lord with Nicodemus ; and they 
are so exactly parallel to it, that they fully con- 
firm the opinion of those who understand our 
Lord as expressly asserting that man is by 
nature corrupt and sinful, and unfit, in conse- 
quence, for the kingdom of heaven ; and that all 
amendment of his case must result, not from 
himself, so totally is he gone from original right- 
eousness, but from that special operation of the 
Holy Spirit which produces a new birth or re- 
generation. Both assert the natural state of 
man to be fleshly, that is, morally corrupt ; both 
assert, that in man himself there is no remedy ; 
and both attribute principles of holiness to a 
supernatural agency, the agency of the Spirit of 
God himself. 

No criticism can make this language con- 
sistent with the theory of natural innocence. 
St. Paul describes the state of man, before he 
comes under the quickening and renewing in- 
fluence of tho Spirit, as being "in tho flesh ;" in 
which state "he cannot please God :"' as having 
a "carnal mind," which "is not, and cannot be, 
subject to tho law of God." Our Lord, in like 



400 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART PI. 



manner, describes the state of "the flesh," this 
condition of entire unfitness for the kingdom 
of heaven, as our natural state; and to make 
this the stronger, he refers this unfitness for 
heaven not to our acquired habits, but to the 
state in -which we are born ; for the very reason 
which he gives for the necessity of a new birth 
is, that "that which is born of the flesh is 
flesh," and therefore we "must be bom again." 
To interpret, therefore, the phrase, "to be flesh, 
as being born of the flesh," merely to signify 
that we are, by natural birth, endowed with the 
physical powers of human nature, is utterly 
absurd ; for what, then, is it to be born of the 
Spirit ? Is it to receive physical powers which 
do not belong to human nature? Or, if they 
go a step farther, and admit that "to be flesh 
as being born of the flesh," means to be frail 
and mortal like our parents, still the inter- 
pretation is a physical and not a moral one, and 
leads to this absurdity, that we must interpret 
the being born of the Spirit physically, and not 
morally, likewise. Now, since the being born 
of the Spirit refers to a change which is effected 
in time, and not at the resurrection, because our 
Lord speaks of being "born of water" as well 
as the Spirit, by which he means baptism ; and 
as St. Paul says to the Romans, in the passage 
above quoted, "ye are not in the flesh, but in 
the Spirit," and therefore speaks of their pre- 
sent experience in this world, it may be asked, 
what physical change did, in reality, take place 
in them in consequence of being "born of the 
Spirit?" On all hands it is allowed that none 
took place : that they remained "frail and mor- 
tal" still; and it follows, therefore, that it is 
a moral and not a physical change which is 
spoken of, both by our Lord and by the apostle ; 
and if a moral change from sin to holiness, 
then is the natural state of man from his 
birth, and in consequence of his birth, sinful and 
corrupt. 

The other passage is the argument in the 
third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in 
which the apostle "proves both Jews and Gen- 
tiles under sin, that every mouth may be stopped, 
and all the world may become guilty before 
God ;" and then proposes the means of salvation 
by faith in Christ, on the express ground that 
li all have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God." Whoever reads that argument, and 
considers the universality of the terms used, 

ALL, EVERY, ALL THE WORLD, BOTH JEWS AND 

Gextiles, must conclude, in all fairness of inter- 
pretation, that the whole human race, of every 
age, is intended. But if any will construe his 
words partially, then he is placed in the follow- 
ing dilemma : — The apostle grounds the wisdom 



and mercy of that provision which is made 
for man's salvation in the gospel upon man's 
sinfulness, danger, and helplessness. Now, the 
gospel as a remedy for disease, as salvation 
from danger, is designed for all men, or but for 
a part : if for all, then all are diseased and in 
danger : if but for a part, then the undiseased 
part of the human race, those who are in no 
danger, have no interest in the gospel, it is not 
adapted to their case ; and not only is the argu- 
ment of the apostle lost, but those who advocate 
this notion must explain how it is that our Lord 
himself commanded the gospel to be preached 
"to every creature," if but a part of mankind 
need its salvation. 

The doctrine, then, of Scripture is, I think, 
clearly established to be, that of the natural and 
universal corruption of man's nature ; and we 
now consider whether on this ground, or on 
the hypothesis of man's natural innocence or 
indifference to good or to evil, the facts above 
enumerated can be best explained. They are, 
1. The, at least, general corruption of manners 
in all times and countries. 2. The strength of 
the tendency in man to evil. 3. The early ap- 
pearance of the principles of various vices in 
children. 4. Every man's consciousness of a 
natural tendency in his mind to one or more 
evils. 5. That general resistance to virtue in 
the heart, which renders education, influence, 
watchfulness, and conflict necessary to counteract 
the force of evil. These points have been 
already explained more at large ; and they are 
facts which, it is presumed, cannot be denied, 
and such as have the confirmation of history and 
experience. 

That they are easily and fully accounted for 
by the scriptural doctrine is obvious. The 
fountain is bitter, and the tree is corrupt : the 
bitter stream and the bad fruit are, therefore, 
the natural consequences. But the advocates 
of the latter hypothesis have no means of ac- 
counting for these moral phenomena except by 
referring them to bad example and a vicious 
education. 

Let us take the first. To account for general 
wickedness, they refer to general example. 

But, 1. This does not account for the intro- 
duction of moral wickedness. The children of 
Adam were not born until after the repentance 
of our first parents and their restoration to the 
Divine favor. They appear to have been his 
devout worshippers, and to have had access to 
his "presence," the visible glory of the Shechi- 
nah. From what example, then, did Cain learn 
malice, hatred, and, finally, murder? Example 
will not account, also, for the too common fact 
of the children of highly virtuous parents be- 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



401 



coming immoral ; for, since the examples nearest 
to them and constantly present with them are 
good examples, if the natural disposition were 
as good as this hypothesis assumes, the good ex- 
ample always present ought to he more influen- 
tial than had examples at a distance, and only 
occasionally seen or heard of. 

2. If men are naturally disposed to good, or 
only not indisposed to it, it is not accounted for, 
on this hypothesis, how bad example should have 
become general • that is, how men should gene- 
rally have become wicked. 

If the natural disposition be more in favor of 
good than evil, then there ought to have been 
more good than evil in the world, which is con- 
tradicted by fact : if there had been only an in- 
difference in our minds to good and evil, then, at 
least, the quantum of vice and virtue in society 
ought to have been pretty equally divided, 
which is also contrary to fact ; and also it ought 
to have followed from this, that at least all the 
children of virtuous persons would have been 
virtuous: that, for instance, the descendants of 
Seth would have followed in succession the steps 
of their righteous forefathers, though the children 
of Cain (passing by the difficulty of his own 
lapse) should have become vicious. On neither 
supposition can the existence of a general evil 
example in the world be accounted for. It 
ought not to have existed, and if so, the 
general corruption of mankind cannot be ex- 
plained by it. 

3. This very method of explaining the general 
viciousness of society does itself suppose the 
power of bad example ; and, indeed, in this it 
agrees with universal opinion. All the moralists 
of public and domestic life, all professed teachers, 
all friends of youth, all parents have repeated 
their cautions against evil society to those whom 
they wished to preserve from vice. The writings 
of moralists, heathen and inspired, are full of 
these admonitions, and they are embodied in the 
proverbs and wise traditional sayings of all civil- 
ized nations. But the very force of evil example 
can only be accounted for by supposing a prone- 
ness in youth to be corrupted by it. Why should 
it be more influential than good example, a fact 
universally acknowledged, and so strongly felt, 
that, for one person preserved by the sole influ- 
ence of a good example, everybody expects that 
a great number would be corrupted by an evil 
one? But if the hypothesis of man's natural 
innocence were true, this ought not to be ex- 
pected as a probable, much less as a certain re- 
sult. Bad example would meet with resistance 
from a good nature ; and it would bo much more 
difficult to influence by bad examples than by 
good ones. 

26 



4. Nor does example account for the other 
facts in the above enumeration. It does not ac- 
count for that strong bias to evil in men, which, 
in all ages, has borne down the most powerful 
restraints ; for from this tendency that corrupt 
general example has sprung, which is alleged as 
the cause of it ; and it must, therefore, have ex- 
isted previously, because the general example, 
that is, the general corrupt practice of men, is its 
effect. We cannot, in this way, account for the 
early manifestation of wrong principles, tempers, 
and affections in children ; since they appear at 
an age when example can have little influence, 
and even when the surrounding examples are 
good, as well as when they are evil. Why, too, 
should virtue always be found more or less a con- 
flict ? so that self-government and self-resistance 
are, in all cases, necessary for its preservation. 
The example of others will not account for this ; 
for mere example can only influence when it is 
approved by the judgment ; but here is a case in 
which evil is not approved, in which "whatso- 
ever things are true, whatsoever things are pure," 
are approved, desired, and cultivated; and yet 
the resistance of the heart to the judgment is so 
powerful, that a constant warfare and a strict 
command are necessary to perseverance. 

Let us, then, see whether a bad education, the 
other cause, usually alleged to account for these 
facts, will be more successful. 

1. This cause will no more account for the in- 
troduction of passions so hateful as those of Cain, 
issuing in a fratricide so odious, into the family 
of Adam, than will example. As there was no 
example of these evils in the primeval family, so 
certainly there was no education which could in- 
cite and encourage them. We are also left still 
without a reason why, in well-ordered and reli- 
gious families, where education and the example, 
too, is good, so many instances of their inefficacy 
should occur. If bad education corrupts a na- 
turally well-disposed mind, then a good educa- 
tion ought still more powerfully to affect it, and 
give it a right tendency. It is allowed that good 
example and good education are, in many in- 
stances, effectual ; but we can account for them, 
without giving up the doctrine of the natural 
corruption of the heart. It is, however, impos- 
sible for those to account for those failures of 
both example and instruction which often take 
place, since, on the hypothesis of man's natural 
innocence and good disposition, they ought never 
to occur, or, at least, but in very rare cases, and 
when some singular counteracting external causes 
happen to come into operation. 

2i Wo may also ask, how it canio to pass, un- 
less there wcro a predisposing oanse to it, that 
education, as well as example, should have boon 



402 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



generally bad ? Of education, indeed, men are 
usually more careful than of example. The lips 
are often right when the life is -wrong : and many 
practice evil who will not go so far as to teach 
it. If human nature, then, be born pure, or, at 
worst, equally disposed to good and evil, then the 
existence of a generally corrupting system of 
education, in all countries and among all people, 
cannot be accounted for. "We have an effect 
either contrary to the assigned cause, or one to 
which the cause is not adequate — it is the case 
of a pure fountain sending forth corrupt streams ; 
or that of a stream which, if turbid, has a con- 
stant tendency to defecation, and yet becomes 
still more muddy as it flows along its course. 

3. It is not, however, the fact, that education 
is directly and universally so corrupting a cause 
as to account for the depravity of mankind. In 
many instances it has been defective : it has often 
inculcated false views of interest and honor; it 
has fostered prejudices, and even national, though 
not social, hatreds ; but it has only in few cases 
been employed to teach those vices into which 
men have commonly fallen. In fact, education, 
in all countries, has been, in no small degree, 
opposed to vice ; and, as the majority of the worst 
people among us would shudder to have their 
children instructed in the vices which they them- 
selves practice, so, in the worst nations of anti- 
quity, the characters of schoolmasters were re- 
quired to be correct, and many principles and 
maxims of a virtuous kind were, doubtless, taught 
to children. When Horace says of youth, "Ce- 
reus in vitium flecti, monitoribus asper," he ac- 
knowledges its natural tendency to receive vicious 
impressions, but shows, too, that it was not left 
without contrary admonition. Precisely in those 
vices which all education, even the most defec- 
tive, is designed to guard against, the world has 
displayed its depravity most obviously ; and thus, 
so far from education being sufficient to account 
for the evils which have stained society in all 
ages, its influence has been, in no small degree, 
opposed to them. 

4. To come to the other facts which must be 
accounted for, education is placed upon the same 
ground in the argument as example. The early 
evil dispositions in children cannot thus be ex- 
plained, for they appear before education com- 
mences ; nor does any man refer to education his 
propensity to constitutional sins ; the resistance 
he often feels to good in his heart ; his prone- 
ness to forget God, and to be indifferent to spirit- 
ual and eternal objects: all these he feels to be 
opposed to those very principles which his judg- 
ment approves, and with which it was furnished 
by education. 

It is only, then, by the scriptural account of 



: the natural and hereditary corruption of the hu- 
i man race, commonly called original sin, 1 that 
I these facts are fully accounted for; and as the 
, facts themselves cannot be denied, such an in- 
| terpretation of the Scripture as we have given 
| above is, therefore, abundantly confirmed. 

As the fact of a natural inclination to evil can- 
not be successfully combated, some have taken a 
milder view of the case; and, allowing these 
tendencies to various excesses, account for them 
by their being natural tendencies to what is 
pleasing; and so, for this reason, they deny them 
to be sinful, until they are complied with and ap- 
proved by the will. This appears to be the view 
of Limborch, and some of the later divines of 
the Arminian school, who on this and other points 
very materially departed from the tenets of their 
master. (See Limbokch's Theologia Christiana, 
liber iii., caput 4.) Nothing, however, is gained 
by this notion, when strictly examined ; for, let 
it be granted that these propensities are to things 
naturally pleasing, and that, in excess, they are 
out of their proper order ; yet as it happens that, 
as soon as every person comes to years to know 
that they are wrong, as being contrary to the 
Divine law, he yet chooses them, and thus, with- 
out dispute, makes them sins, this universal 
compliance of the icill with what is known to be 
evil is also to be accounted for, as well as the 
natural tendency to sinful gratifications. 2Sow, 
as we have proved the universality of sin, this 
universal tendency of the will to choose and 
sanction the natural propensity to unlawful gra- 
tification is the proof of a natural state of mind, 
not only defective, but corrupt, which is what we 
contend for. If it be said that these natural 
propensities to various evils in children are not 
sinful before they have the consent of the will, 
all that can be maintained is, that they are not 
actual sins, which no one asserts : but as a uni- 
versal choice of evil, when accountableness takes 
place, proves a universal pravity of the will, pre- 
vious to the actual choice, then it inevitably fol- 
lows, that though infants do not commit actual 
sin, yet that theirs is a sinful nature. 

Finally, the death and sufferings to which 
children are subject is a proof that all men, from 
their birth, are " constituted," as the apostle has 
it, and treated as " sinners/' An innocent crea- 
ture may die : no one disputes that ; but to die 
was not the original law of our species, and the 
Scriptures refer death solely to sin as its cause. 
Throughout the sacred writings, too, it is repre- 
sented as a penalty, as an evil of the highest 
kind 4 and it is in vain to find out ingenious rea- 

i The term " original sin" appears to hare been first 
introduced by St. Augustin, in his controversy with the 
Pelagians. 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



403 



sons to prove it a blessing to mankind. They 
prove nothing against the directly opposite char- 
acter which has been stamped upon death and 
the suffering of moral disease, by the testimony 
of God. On the hypothesis of man's natural 
innocence, the death of the innocent is not to be 
reconciled to any known attribute of God, to any 
manifested principle of his moral government; 
but on that of his natural corruptness and federal 
relation to Adam it is explained : it is a declara- 
tion of God's hatred of sin ; a proclamation of 
the purity and inflexibility of his law ; while the 
connection of this state with the provisions of 
the covenant of grace, present li mercy and truth 
meeting together, righteousness and peace kiss- 
ing each other." 

As to that in which original sin consists, some 
divines and some public formularies have so ex- 
pressed themselves, that it might be inferred that 
a positive evil, infection, and taint had been ju- 
dicially infused into man's nature by God, which 
has been transmitted to all his posterity. Others, 
and those the greater number, both of the Cal- 
vinist and Arminian schools, have resolved it into 
privation. This distinction is well stated in the 
Private Disputations of Arminius : 

"But since the tenor of the covenant into 
which God entered with our first parents was 
this, that if they continued in the favor and grace 
of God, by the observance of that precept and 
others, the gifts which had been conferred upon 
them should be transmitted to their posterity, by 
the like Divine grace which they had received ; 
but if they should render themselves unworthy 
of those favors, through disobedience, that their 
posterity should likewise be deprived of them, 
and should be liable to the contrary evils, hence 
it followed, that all men, who were to be natur- 
ally propagated from them, have become obnox- 
ious to death temporal and eternal, and have been 
destitute of that gift of the Holy Spirit, or of 
original righteousness. This punishment is usu- 
ally called a privation of the image of God, and 
original sin. 

" But we allow this point to be made the sub- 
ject of discussion : beside the want or absence 
of original righteousness, may not some other 
contrary quality be constituted, as another part 
of original sin ? We think it is more probable 
that this absence alone of original righteousness 
is original sin itself, since it alone is sufficient for 
the commission and production of every actual 
sin whatever." 

This is by some divines called, with great apt- 
ness, "a depravation arising from a depriva- 
tion," and is certainly much more consonant with 
the Scripturos than the opinion of (lie infusion 
of evil qualities into the nature of man by a 



positive cause, or direct tainting of the heart. 
This has been, indeed, probably an opinion, in 
the proper sense, with few, and has rather been 
collected from the strong and rhetorical expres- 
sions under which the moral state of man is often 
exhibited, and, on this account, has been at- 
tacked as a part of the doctrine of original sin, 
by the advocates of original innocence, and as 
making God directly the author of sin. No such 
difficulty, however, accompanies the accurate and 
guarded statement of that doctrine in the sense 
of Scripture. The depravation, the perversion, 
the defect of our nature, is to be traced to our 
birth, so that in our flesh is no good thing, and 
they that are in the flesh cannot please God ; but 
this state arises not from the infusion of evil into 
the nature of man by God, but from that separa- 
tion of man from God, that extinction of spirit- 
ual life which was effected by sin, and the con- 
sequent and necessary corruption of man's moral 
nature. For that positive evil and corruption 
may flow from a mere privation may be illus- 
trated by that which supplies the figure of 
speech, " death," under which the Scriptures re- 
present the state of mankind. For, as in the 
death of the body the mere privation of the 
principle of life produces inflexibility of the 
muscles, the extinction of heat, and sense, and 
motion, and surrenders the body to the opera- 
tion of an agency which life, as long as it con- 
tinued, resisted, namely, that of chemical de- 
composition, so, from the loss of spiritual life, 
followed estrangement from God, moral inability, 
the dominion of irregular passions, and the rule 
of appetite; aversion, in consequence, to re- 
straint ; and enmity to God,. 

This connection of positive evil, as the effect, 
with privation of the life and image of God, as 
the cause, is, however, to be well understood and 
carefully maintained, or otherwise we should fall 
into a great error on the other side, as, indeed, 
some have done, who did not perceive that the 
corruption of man's nature necessarily followed 
upon the privation referred to. It is, therefore, 
a just remark of Calvin, that "those who have 
defined original sin as a privation of the original 
righteousness, though they comprise the whole 
of the subject, yet have not used language suffi- 
ciently expressive of its operation and influence. 
For our nature is not only destitute of all good, 
but is so fertile in all evils, that it cannot remain 
inactive." — Institutes. Indeed, this privation is 
not fully expi*essed by tho phrase "the loss of 
original righteousness," unless that be meant to 
include in it tho only source of righteousness in 
even the first man, the life which is imparted 
and supplied by the IIolv Spirit. A similar want 
of explicitness wo observe also in Calvin's own 



m 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



statement in his generally very able chapter on t 
Due ?xbject, that Adam lost -the ornaments" he 
received from his Maker :':: us - vrell as for 
himself : unless we understand by these original 
" ornament: and ■• rxdownients" of hnman na- 
ture in him. the principle also, as above stated. 
from -which they all flowed: and which, being 
forfeited, could no longer be imparted in the way ' 
of nature. For when the Spirit was restored to 
Adam, being pardoned, it was by grace and fa- 
• . ?jid he could not impart it by natural de- ! 
B : art : : his pc Jterity, thongh born of him when 
in a state of acceptance with God. ranee these 
influences are the gifts of God. which are im- 
parted not by the first but by the second Adam : 
not by nature, bnt by a free gift, to sinful and 
guilty man, the law being irreversible, "that 
which is born of the flesh is flesh." 

Arminius, in the above quotation, has more 
forcibly and explicitly expressed that privation 
of which we speak, by the forfeiture "of the 
gift of the Holy Spirit' 3 7 A lam, for himself 
and his descendants, and the loss of original 
righteousness .5 the : : xsequence. 

This I take to be at once a simple and a scrip- 
tural view of the case. President Edwards, who 
wefl argues against the notion of the infusion of 
eviL perplexes his subject by his theory of " na- 
tural and supernatural principles," which the 
notes of Dr. Williams, his e fotor, who has intro- 
duced the peculiarities of his system of t 
power, have not relieved. So far, certainly, both 
are right: the latter, that the creature cannot 
uphold itself, either physically or morally, with- 
:v.: t>1; the former, that our natural passions 1 
and appetites can only be controlled by the higher 
principles, which are " summarily comprehended | 
in Divine love." Bnt the power which upholds f 
the rational creature in spiritual life is the Holy 
Spirit ; and the source of these controlling super- 
natural powers, comprehended in "Divine, is 
also the Holy Spirit ; from the loss of which all ! 
the depravation of man's nature proceeded. 

This point may be briefly elucidated- The in- \ 
fliction of spiritual death, which we have already 
shown to be included in the original sentence, 
consisted, of course, in the loss of spiritual life, j 
which was that principle from which all right 
direction and control of the various powers and | 
ies of man flowed. But this spiritual life 
in the first man was not a natural effect, that is, 
an effect which would follow from his mere crea- 
tion, independent of the vouchsafed influence of 
the Holy Spirit. This may be inferred from the ; 
••new creation," which is the renewal of man 
after the image of Him who at first created him. j 
This is the work of the Holy Spirit : but even 
this change, this being "born again," man 



[past n. 

is not able to preserve himself in the renewed 
condition into which he is brought, but by the 
continuance of the same quickening and aiding 
influence. 2*0 future growth in knowledge and 
experience, no power of habit, long perse 1 
in, render him independent of the help of the 
Holy Spirit : he has rather, in proportion to his 
growth, a deeper eonscaonsness :: his need of 
the indwelling of God. and of what the apostle 
sails lis • mighty working."' The strongest Uh 
pirations of this new life are after communion and 
constant intercourse with God; and as that is 
the siurce of new strength, so this renewed 
strength ex;: resses itself in a - cleaving unto the 
Lord," with a still more vigorous "purp: : 
heart." In a word, the sanctity of a CL:; 
is dependent wholly upon the presence of the 
Sanctifier. We can only work out our own sal- 
: as" > 1 ^-orketh in us to will and to do." 
This is the constant language of the New 
tament ; but if we are restored to what was lost 
by Adam, through the benefit brought to us by 
the second Adam ; if there be any eorrespond- 
rx : 7 "between the moral state of the regenerate 
man and that of man before his falL we do not 
speak of degree, but of substantial samene- 
kind and quality : if love to God be in us what 
it was in him ; if holine; = . in its various branches, 
»s i: flows from love, be in us what it was in him ; 
we have sufficient reason to infer, that as 
are supported in us by the influence of the Divine 
Spirit, they — rir ; : snpj nrted in him. Certain 
it is, that, before we are thus quickened by the 
Spirit, we are "dead in trespasses and sins;'' 
and if we are made alive by that Spirit, it is a 
strong presumption that the withdrawing of that 
Spirit from Adam, when he wilfully sinned, and 
from all his posterity, that is, from human na- 
ture itself, was the cause of the death and the 
depravation which followed. 

But this is not left to mere inference. For, as 
Mr. Howe justly observes, when speaking of 
"the retraction of God's Spirit from Adam," 
"This we It not say gratuitously; fordo but 

er that plain text, (GaL iii. 13,) «Cn 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us : for cursed is every 
one that hangeth on a tree ; that the blessing of 
Abraham might come on the Gentiles, that 
might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
faith.' If the remission of the curse carry with 
it the conferring of the grace of the Spirit, then 
the curse, while it did continue, could not but 
include and carry in it the privation of : 
This was part of the curse upon apostate A 

the loss Spirit As _ . ■- 

broken, man was curs 2 . tn ^ 3 

should be withheld, should be kept off, 



CH. XVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



405 



otherwise than as upon the Redeemer's account, 
and according to h-3 methods it should be re- 
stored. Hereupon it could not but ensue that 
the holy image of God must be erased and van- 
ished." — Posthumous Works. 

This accounts for the whole case of man's cor- 
ruption. The Spirit's influence in him did not 
prevent the possibility of his sinning, though it 
afforded sufficient security to him, as long as he 
looked up to that source of strength. He did 
sin, and the Spirit retired ; and, the tide of sin 
once turned in, the mound of resistance being 
removed, it overflowed his whole nature. In this 
state of alienation from God men are born, with 
all these tendencies to evil, because the only con- 
trolling and sanctifying power, the presence of 
the Spirit, is wanting, and is now given to man, 
not, as when first brought into being, as a crea- 
ture, but is secured to him by the mercy and 
grace of a new and different dispensation, under 
which the Spirit is administered in different de- 
grees, times, and modes, according to the wisdom 
of God, never on the ground of our being crea- 
tures, but as redeemed from the curse of the law 
by him who became a curse for us. 

A question as to the transmission of this cor- 
ruption of nature from parents to children has 
been debated among those who, nevertheless, ad- 
mit the fact — some contending that the soul is 
ex traduce; others, that it is by immediate crea- 
tion. It is certain that, as to the metaphysical 
part of this question, we can come to no satis- 
factory conclusion. The Scriptures, however, 
appear to be more in favor of the doctrine of 
traduction. "Adam begat a son in his own like- 
ness." " That which is born of the flesh is flesh ;" 
"which refers certainly to the soul as well as to 
the body. The fact also of certain dispositions 
and eminent faculties of the mind being often 
found in families appears to favor this notion, 
though it may be plausibly said, that, as the 
mind operates by bodily instruments, there may 
be a family constitution of the body, as there is 
of likeness, which may be more favorable to the 
excitement and exertion of certain faculties than 
others. 

The usual argument against this traduction of 
the human spirit is, that the doctrine of its gen- 
eration tends to materialism. But this arises 
from a mistaken view of that in which the pro- 
creation of a human being lies, which does not 
consist in the production out of nothing of either 
of the parts of which the compounded being, 
man, is constituted, but in the uniting them sub- 
stantially with one another. The matter of the 
body is not, then, first made, but disposed, nor 
can it bo supposed that the soul is by that act 
first produced. That belongs to a higher power; 



and then the only question is, whether all souls 
were created in Adam, and are transmitted by a 
law peculiar to themselves, which is always under 
the control of the will of that same watchful 
Providence, of whose constant agency in the 
production and ordering of the kinds, sexes, and 
circumstances of the animal creation, we have 
abundant proof; or whether they are imme- 
diately created. The usual objection to the last 
notion is, that God cannot create an evil nature ; 
but if our corruption is the result of privation, 
not of positive infection, the notion of the imme- 
diate creation of the soul is cleared of a great 
difficulty, though it is not wholly disentangled. 
But the tenet of the soul's descent appears to 
have most countenance from the language of 
Scripture ; and it is no small confirmation of it, 
that when God designed to incarnate his own 
Son, he stepped out of the ordinary course, and 
formed a sinless human nature immediately by 
the power of the Holy Ghost. The philosophical 
difficulties which have presented themselves to 
this opinion appear chiefly to have arisen from 
supposing that consciousness is an essential at- 
tribute of spirit, and that the soul is naturally 
immortal — the former of which cannot be proved, 
while the latter is contradicted by Scripture, 
which makes our immortality a gift dependent 
on the will of the giver. Other difficulties have 
arisen for want of considering the constant 
agency of God in regulating the production of 
all things, and of rational accountable crea- 
tures especially. 

But whichever of these views is adopted, the 
soul and the body are united before birth, and 
man is born under that curse of the law which 
has deprived fallen human nature of the Spirit 
of God, who can only be restored by Christ. 
It is, therefore, well and forcibly said by Cal- 
vin — " To enable us to understand this subject, 
(man's birth in sin,) we have no need to enter 
on that tedious dispute, with which the fathers 
were not a little perplexed, whether the soul 
proceeds by derivation. We ought to be satis- 
fied with this, that the Lord deposited with 
Adam the endowments he chose to confer upon 
human nature; and, therefore, that when he 
lost the favors he had received, he lost them not 
only for himself, but for us all. Who will be 
solicitous about a transmission of the soul, when 
he hears that Adam received the ornaments 
that he lost no less for us than for himself? 
that they were given, not to ono man only, but 
to the whole human nature? There is nothing 
absurd, therefore, if, in consequence o( his being 
spoiled of his dignities, that nature be now de- 
stitute and poor." — Institutes. 

From this view of tho total alienation of the 



406 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



nature of man from God, it does not, however, 
follow that there should be nothing virtuous 
and praiseworthy among men, until, in the pro- 
per sense, they become the subjects of the re- 
generation insisted upon in the gospel as neces- 
sary to qualify men for the kingdom of heaven. 
From the virtues which have existed among 
heathens, and from men being called upon to 
repent and believe the gospel, it has been 
argued that human nature is not so entirely cor- 
rupt and disabled as the above representation 
would suppose ; and, indeed, on the Calvinistic 
theory, which denies that all men are inter- 
ested in the benefits procured by the death of 
Christ, it would be extremely difficult for any 
to meet this objection, and to maintain their own 
views of the corruption of man with con- 
sistency. On the contrary theory of God's 
universal love, nothing is more easy; because, 
in consequence of the atonement offered for all, 
the Holy Spirit is administered to all, and to 
his secret operations all that is really spiritual 
and good, in its principle, is to be ascribed. 

Independent of this influence, indeed, it may 
be conceived that there may be much restraint 
of evil, and many acts of external goodness 
in the world, without at all impugning the doc- 
trine of an entire estrangement of the heart from 
God, and a moral death in trespasses and sins. 

1. The understanding of man is, by its nature, 
adapted to perceive the evidence of demon- 
strated truth, and has no means of avoiding the 
conviction but by turning away the attention. 
Wherever, then, revelations of the Divine law, 
or traditional remembrances of it are found, 
notions of right and wrong have been and must 
be found also. 

2. So much of what is right and wrong is 
connected with the interests of men, that they 
have been led publicly to approve what is right 
in all instances — in all instances where it is 
obviously beneficial to society — and to disap- 
prove of wrong. They do this by public laws, by 
their writings, and by their censures of offenders. 
Amoral standard of judging of vice and virtue has, 
therefore, been found everywhere, though vary- 
ing in degree ; which men have generally honestly 
applied to others in passing a judgment on their 
characters, though they have not used the same 
fidelity to themselves. More or less, therefore, 
the practice of what is condemned as vice or ap- 
proved as virtue is shameful or creditable, and 
the interests and reputation of men require that 
they obtain what is called a character, and pre- 
serve it: a circumstance which often serves to 
restrain vicious practices, and to produce a 
negative virtue, or an affectation of real and 
active virtue. 



[part II. 

3. Though the seeds of sin lie hid in the 
heart of all, yet their full development and 
manifestation in action can only take place 
slowly and by the operation of exciting circum- 
stances. Much of the evil in the world, also, 
lies in the irregularities of those natural appetites 
and the excesses of those passions which are not 
in themselves evil, and such corrupt habits 
cannot be formed until after opportunities of fre- 
quent indulgence have been given. This will 
account for the comparative innocence of in- 
fancy, of youth, and of those around whom 
many guards have been thrown by providential 
arrangement. 

4. We may notice, also, that it is not possible, 
were all men equally constituted as to their 
moral nature, that all sins should show them- 
selves in all men; and that, although there is 
nothing in the proper sense good in any, society 
should present an unvarying mass of corrup- 
tion, which some appear to think a necessary 
corollary from the doctrine of the universal cor- 
ruption of human nature. Avarice, the strong 
desire of getting and of hoarding wealth, neces- 
sarily restrains from expensive vices. An obse- 
quious and a tyrannical temper cannot coexist in 
the same circumstances, and yet, in other cir- 
cumstances, the obsequious man is often found 
to be tyrannical, and the latter obsequious. 
Certain events excite a latent passion, such as 
ambition, and it becomes a master passion, to 
which all others are subordinated, and even 
vicious dispositions and habits controlled in order 
to success : just on the same principle that the 
ancient athletse 1 and our modern prize-fighters 
abstain from sensual indulgences, in order to 
qualify themselves for the combat; but who 
show, by the habits in which they usually live, 
that particular vices are suspended only under 
the influence of a stronger passion. Perhaps, 
too, that love of country, that passion for its 
glory and aggrandizement, which produced so 
many splendid actions and characters among the 
Greeks and Romans — a circumstance which has 
been urged against the doctrine of man's de- 
pravity — may come under this rule. That it 
was not itself the result of a virtuous state of 
mind in at least the majority of cases, is clear from 
the frauds, injustice, oppressions, cruelties, and 
avarice with which it was generally connected. 

5. It is a fact, too, which cannot be denied, 
that men have constitutional evil tendencies, 
some more powerfully bent to one vice, some to 
another. Whether it results from a different con- 
stitution of the mind that the general corrup- 

l "Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam, 
Multa tulit fecitque puer ; sudavit et alsit ; 
Abstinuit venere, et vino." — Horace. 



JH. XVIII.] 



tion should act more powerfully in one direction 
in this man, and in another in that; or from 
the temperament of the body; or from some 
law impressed by God upon a sinful nature, 
(which it involves no difficulty to admit, in- 
asmuch as society could scarcely have existed 
without that balance of evils and that check 
of one vice upon another which this circum- 
stance produces,) such is the fact; and it gives 
a reason for the existence of much negative vir- 
tue in society. 

From all these causes, appearances of good 
among unregenerate men will present them- 
selves, without affording any ground to deduct 
any thing from those statements as to man's 
fallen state which have been just made ; but 
these negative virtues, and these imitations of 
actions really good, from interest, ambition, or 
honor, have no foundation in the fear of God, in 
a love to virtue as such, in a right will, or in 
spiritual affections ; and they afford, therefore, 
no evidence of spiritual life, or, in other words, 
of religious principle. To other vices, to which 
there is any temptation, and to those now 
avoided, whenever the temptation comes, men 
uniformly yield ; and this shows, that though 
the common corruption varies its aspects, it is, 
nevertheless, unrelieved by a real virtuous 
principle in any, so far as they are left to them- 
selves. 

But virtues grounded on principle, though an 
imperfect one, and therefore neither negative 
nor simulated, may also be found among the un- 
regenerate, and have existed, doubtless, in all 
ages. These, however, are not from man, but 
from God, whose Holy Spirit has been vouch- 
safed to " the world" through the atonement. 
This great truth has often been lost sight of in 
this controversy. Some Calvinists seem to ac- 
knowledge it substantially, under the name of 
"common grace:" others choose rather to refer 
all appearances of virtue to nature, and thus, 
by attempting to avoid the doctrine of the gift 
of the Spirit to all mankind, attribute to nature 
what is inconsistent with their opinion of its 
entire corruption. But there is, doubtless, to be 
sometimes found in men not yet regenerate in 
the Scripture sense, not even decided in their 
choice, something of moral excellence, which 
cannot bo referred to any of the causes above 
adduced ; and of a much higher character than 
is to be attributed to a nature which, when left 
to itself, is wholly destitute of spiritual lifo: 
compunction for sin, strong desires to bo freed 
from its tyranny, such a fear of God as pre- 
serves them from many evils, charity, kindness, 
good-neighborhood, general respeot for good- 
ness, and good men, a lofty sense of honor and 



DOCTRINES Or CHRISTIANITY. 



407 



justice, and, indeed, as the very command issued 
to them to repent and believe the gospel in 
order to their salvation implies, a power of con- 
sideration, prayer, and turning to God, so as to 
commence that course which, persevered in, 
would lead on to forgiveness and regeneration. 
To say that all these are to be attributed to mere 
nature, is to surrender the argument to the 
semi-Pelagian, who contends that these are 
proofs that man is not wholly degenerate. They 
are to be attributed to the controlling influence 
of the Holy Spirit : to his incipient workings in 
the hearts of men : to the warfare which he 
there maintains, and which has sometimes a 
partial victory, before the final triumph comes, 
or when, through the fault of man, through 
"resisting," "grieving," "vexing," "quench- 
ing" that Holy Spirit, that final triumph may 
never come. It is thus that one part of Scrip- 
ture is reconciled to another, and both to fact : 
the declaration of man's total corruption with 
the presumption of his power to return to God, 
to repent, to break off his sins, which all the 
commands and invitations to him from the 
gospel imply; and thus it is that we under- 
stand how, especially in Christian countries, 
where the Spirit is more largely effused, there 
is so much more general virtue than in others ; 
and in those circles, especially, in which Chris- 
tian education, and the prayers of the pious, 
and the power of example, are applied and ex- 
hibited. 

The scriptural proof that the Spirit is given 
to ( 'the world" is obvious and decisive. We 
have seen that the curse of the law implied a 
denial of the Spirit : the removal of that curse 
implies, therefore, the gift of the Spirit, and the 
benefit must be as large and extensive as the 
atonement. Hence we find the Spirit's opera- 
tions spoken of, not only as to the good, but the 
wicked, in all the three dispensations. In the 
patriarchal, " the Spirit strove with men :" 
with the antediluvian race, before and all the 
time the ark was preparing. The Jews in the 
wilderness are said to have "vexed his Holy 
Spirit:" Christ promises to send the Spirit to 
convince the world of sin ; and the book of God's 
Ilevelations concludes by representing the Spirit 
as well as the Bride, the Holy Ghost as well 
as the Church in her ordinances, inviting all to 
come and take of the water of life freely. All 
this is the fruit of our redemption, and tho new 
relation in which man is placed to Cod: as a 
sinner, it is true, still ; but a sinner for whom 
atonement has been made, and who is to be 
wooed and won to an aOOeptanoe Of the heavenly 
mercy. Christ having been made a enrse for 
us, the curso of the law no longer shuts out that 



408 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



Spirit from us ; nor can justice exclaim against 
this going forth of the Spirit, as it has been 
beautifully expressed, "to make gentle trials 
upon the spirits of men:" to inject some beams 
of light, to inspire contrite emotions, which, if 
they comply with, may lead on to those more 
powerful and effectual. If, however, they rebel 
against them, and oppose their sensual imagina- 
tions and desires to the secret promptings of 
God's Spirit, they ultimately provoke him to 
withdraw his aid, and they relapse into a state 
more guilty and dangerous. Again and again 
they are visited in various ways, in honor of 
the Redeemer's atonement, and for the mani- 
festation of the long-suffering of God. In some 
the issue is life ; in others, an aggravated 
death; but in most cases this struggle, this 
"striving with man," this debating with him, 
this standing between him and death, cannot 
fail to correct and prevent much evil, to bring 
into existence some "goodness," though it may 
be as the morning cloud and the early dew, and 
to produce civil and social virtues, none of which, 
however, are to be placed to the account of 
nature, nor used to soften our views of its entire 
alienation from God ; but are to be acknow- 
ledged as magnifying that grace which regards 
the whole of the sinning race with compassion, 
and is ever employed in seeking and saving that 
which is lost. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

REDEMPTION. — PRINCIPLES OE GOD'S MORAL GOV- 
ERNMENT. 

We have established it as the doctrine of Holy 
Scripture that all men are born with a corrupted 
nature ; that from this nature rebellion against 
the Divine authority universally flows, and that, 
in consequence, the whole world is, as St. Paul 
forcibly expresses it, "guilty before God," 

Before any issue proceeded from the first pair, 
they were restored to the Divine favor. Had no 
method of forgiveness and restoration been estab- 
lished with respect to human offenders, the pen- 
alty of death must have been forthwith executed 
upon them, there being no doubt of the fact of 
their delinquency, and no reason, in that case, 
for delaying their punishment ; and with and in 
them, the human race must have utterly per- 
ished. The covenant of pardon and salvation 
which was made with Adam did not, however, 
terminate upon him, but comprehended all his 
race. This is a point made indubitable by those 
passages we have already quoted from the Apostle 



[PART II. 



Paul, in which he contrasts the injury which the 
human race have received from the disobedience 
of Adam with the benefit brought to them by the 
obedience of Jesus Christ. " For if, through the 
offence of one, many be dead, much more the 
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by 
one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 
many." "Therefore, as by the offence of one 
judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; 
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life." 

Since, then, the penalty of death was not im- 
mediately executed in all its extent upon the first 
sinning pair, and is not immediately executed 
upon their sinning descendants ; since they were 
actually restored to the Divine favor, and the 
same blessing is offered to us, our inquiries must 
next be directed to the nature and reason of that 
change in the conduct of the Divine Being, in 
which he lays aside, in so great a measure, the 
sternness and inflexibility of his office of Judge, 
and becomes the dispenser of grace and favor to 
the guilty themselves. 

The existence of a Divine law, obligatory upon 
man, is not doubted by any who admit the exist- 
ence and government of God. We have already 
seen its requirements, its extent, and its sanc- 
tions, and have proved that its penalty consists 
not merely of severe sufferings in this life, but 
in death, that is, the separation of the body and 
the soul — the former being left under the power 
of corruption, the other being separated from 
God, and made liable to punishment in another 
state of being. 

It is important to keep in view the fact of the 
extent and severity of the punishment denounced 
against all transgressions of the law of God, be- 
cause this is illustrative of the character of God ; 
both with reference to his essential holiness and 
to his proceedings as Governor of the world. 
The miseries connected with sin, as consequences 
affecting the transgressor himself and society, 
and the afflictions, personal and national, which 
are the results of Divine visitation, must all be 
regarded as punitive. Corrective effects may be 
secondarily connected with them, but primarily 
they must all be punitive. It would be abhor- 
rent to all our notions of the Divine character to 
suppose perfectly innocent beings subject to such 
miseries ; and they are only, therefore, to be ac- 
counted for on the ground of their being the re- 
sults of a supreme judicial administration, which 
bears a strict and often a very terrible character. 
If, to the sufferings and death which result from 
offences in the present life, we add the future 
punishment of the wicked, we shall be the more 
impressed with the depth and breadth of that 
impress of justice which marks the character 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. XIX.] 

and the government of God. Say that this pun- 
ishment is that of loss, loss of the friendship and 
presence of God, and all the advantages which 
must result from that immediate intercourse with 
him which is promised to righteous persons ; and 
that this loss, which, confessedly, must be un- 
speakably great, is eternal; even then it must 
follow that the turpitude of moral delinquency is 
regarded by our Divine Legislator and Judge as 
exceedingly mighty and aggravated. But when 
to the punishment of loss in a future life we add 
that of pain, which all the representations of this 
subject in Scripture certainly establish, whether 
they are held to be expressed in literal or in 
figurative phrase — to which pain also the all- 
impressive circumstance of eternity is to be added 
— then is our sense of the guilt and deserving of 
human offence against God, according to the 
principles of the Divine law, raised, if not to a 
full conception of the evil of sin, (for as we can- 
not measure the punishment, we cannot measure 
the quality of the offence,) yet to a standard of 
judging which may well warrant the scriptural 
exclamation, "It is a fearful thing to fall into 
the hands of the living God." 

These premises are unquestionable, if any re- 
spect is paid to the authority of Scripture ; and, 
indeed, God's severity against moral offence is 
manifested, as to this present life, by facts of 
universal observation and uninterrupted history, 
quite independent of Scripture. But it is to the 
testimony of God himself, in his own word, that 
we must resort for the most important illustra- 
tions of the Divine character, and especially of 
its holiness and justice. 

With respect to the former, they show us that 
holiness in God is more than a mere absence of 
moral evil ; more than approval of and even delight 
in moral goodness ; more than simple aversion to 
and displeasure at what is contrary to it. They 
prove that the holiness of God is so intense that 
whatever is opposed to it is the object of an 
active displacence, of hatred, of opposition, and 
resistance, and that this sentiment is inflexible 
and eternal. Agreeably to this, God is, in Scrip- 
ture, said to be "of purer eyes than to behold 
evil;" and we are taught that "the thoughts of 
the wicked are an abomination" to him. 

With respect to the justice of God, it is neces- 
sary that we should enter into a larger view, 
since a right conception of that attribute of the 
Divine nature lies at the foundation of the Chris- 
tian doctrine of atonement. 

Justice is usually considered as universal or 
particular. Universal justice, or righteousness, 
includes holiness, and, indeed, comprehends all 
the moral attributes of God, all the Divine vir- 
tues of every kind. Particular justice is cither 



409 



commutative, which respects equals, or distributive, 
which is the dispensing of rewards and punish- 
ments, and is exercised only by governors. It is 
the justice of God in this last view, but still in 
connection with universal justice, with which we 
are now concerned — that rector al, sovereign justice 
by which he maintains his own rights, and the 
rights of others, and gives to every one his due 
according to that legal constitution which he has 
himself established. And as this legal constitu- 
tion under which he has placed his creatures is 
the result of universal justice or righteousness, 
the holiness, goodness, truth, and wisdom of God 
united, so his distributive justice, or his respect 
to the laws which he has himself established, is, 
in every respect and degree, faultless and per- 
fect. In this legal constitution, no rights are 
mistaken or misstated ; and nothing is enjoined 
or prohibited, nothing promised or threatened, 
but what is exactly conformable to the universal 
righteousness or absolute moral perfection of 
God. This is the constant doctrine of Scripture, 
this the uniform praise bestowed upon the Divine 
law, that it is, in every respect, conformable to 
abstract truth, purity, holiness, and justice, and 
is itself truth, purity, holiness, and justice. 
"The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing 
the heart: the commandment of the Lord is 
pure, enlightening the eyes: the fear of the 
Lord is clean, enduring for ever : the judgments 
of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 
Psalm xix. 8, 9. "The law is holy, and the 
commandment holt, just, and good." Rom. 
vii. 12. 

Of the strictness and severity of the punitive 
justice of God, the sentence of death, which we 
have already seen to be pronounced upon " sin," 
and, therefore, upon all transgressions of God's 
law, for "sin is the transgression of the law," is 
sufficient evidence ; and the actual infliction of 
death, as to the body, is the standing proof to 
the world that the threatening is not a dead let- 
ter, and that in the Divine administration con- 
tinual and strict regard is had to the claims and 
dispensations of distributive justice. On the 
other hand, as this distributive justice emanates 
from the entire holiness and moral rectitude of 
the Divine nature, it is established, by this cir- 
cumstance, that the severity does not go beyond 
the equity of the case ; and that, to the full ex- 
tent of that punishment which may be inflicted 
in another life, and which is, therefore, eternal, 
there is nothing which is contrary to the full and 
complete moral perfection of God, io his good- 
nest, holiness, truth, and justice united ; but 
that it is fully agreeable to them all, and is, in- 
deed, the result of the perfeot existence of such 
attributes in the Divine nature. 



410 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



The Scriptures, therefore, are frequently ex- 
ceedingly emphatic in ascribing a perfect right- 
eousness to the judicial and penal visitations of 
sinful individuals and nations ; and that not 
merely with reference to such visitations being 
conformable to the penalties threatened in the 
Divine law itself, in which case the righteousness 
would consist in their not exceeding the penalty 
threatened ; but, more abstractedly considered, 
in their very nature, and with reference to even 
the highest standard of righteousness and holiness. 
" Shall not the Judge of all the earth do bight?" 

"It is a RIGHTEOUS THING with God to RECOM- 
PENSE tribulation to them that trouble you." 
2 Thess. i. 6. "The day of wrath and revela- 
tion Of the RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT of GOD." Rom. 

ii. 5. "Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and 
righteous are thy judgments." Rev. xvi. 7. 

The legal constitution, then, which we are 
under, secures life to the obedient, but dooms 
offenders to die, It is the office of distributive 
justice to execute this penalty, as well as to be- 
stow the reward of obedience ; and the appoint- 
ment of the penalty and the execution of it are 
both the results of the essential rectitude of God. 

This is most obvious as the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture ; but have we any means of discerning the 
connection between the essential justice or uni- 
versal righteousness of God, and such a consti- 
tution of law and government as, in the first in- 
stance, ordains so severe a penalty against sin as 
death, maintains it unchangeably through all the 
generations of time, and carries it into eternity ? 
This is an important question, not without its 
difficulties, and yet it may not altogether elude 
our inquiries. Whether we succeed or not in 
discovering this connection, the fact remains the 
same, firmly grounded on the most explicit testi- 
mony of God in his own word. It is, however, 
an inquiry worthy our attention. 

The creation of beings capable of choice, and 
endowed with affections, seems necessarily to 
have involved the possibility of volitions and acts 
contrary to the will of the Creator, and, conse- 
quently, it involved a liability to misery. To 
prevent this, both justice and benevolence were 
concerned : justice, seeing that the Creator has 
an absolute right to the entire obedience of the 
creatures he has made, and all opposition to that 
will is the violation of a right, and the practice 
of a wrong, which justice is bound to prevent : 
benevolence, because this opposition to the will 
of God, which will is the natural law of a crea- 
ture, must be the source of misery to the offender, 
and that independent of direct punishment. This 
is manifest. Some end was proposed in creation, 
or it could not have been a work of wisdom : the 
felicity of the creature must also have been 



[PART n. 

proposed as an end, either principal or subordi- 
nate, or creation could not have been a display 
of goodness : a capacity and power of holiness 
must also have been imparted to moral agents, 
or, in a moral nature, every act would have been 
morally corrupt, and, therefore, the creature 
must have been constantly displeasing to the 
holy God, and not "very good," as all his works, 
including man, were pronounced to be at the be- 
ginning. The end proposed in the forming of 
intelligent creatures could only be answered by 
their continual compliance with the will of God. 
This implied both the power and the exercise of 
holiness, and with that the felicity of the crea- 
ture was necessarily connected. It was adapted 
to a certain end, and in attaining that its happi- 
ness was secured. To be disobedient was to set 
itself in opposition to God, to exist and act for 
ends contrary to the wisdom and holiness of God, 
and was, therefore, to frustrate his benevolent 
intentions also as to its happiness, and to become 
miserable from its very hostility to God, and the 
disorder arising from the misapplication of the 
powers with which it had been endowed. To 
prevent all these evils, and to secure the pur- 
poses for which creative power was exerted, were 
the ends, therefore, of that administration which 
arose out of the existence of moral agents. This 
rule takes date from their earliest being. No 
sooner did they exist, than a Divine government 
was established over them ; and to the ends just 
mentioned all its acts must have been directed. 

The first act was the publication of the will or 
law of God ; for where there is no declared law 
there is no rational government. The second act 
was to give motives to obedience ; for to creatures 
liable to evil, though created good, these were 
necessary ; but as they were made free, and de- 
signed to yield a willing service, more than mo- 
tives, that is, rational inducements, operating 
through the judgment and affections, could not 
be applied to induce obedience : external force 
or necessary impulse could have no place in the 
government of such creatures. The promise of 
the continuance of a happy and still improving 
life comprehended one class of motives to obedi- 
ence ; the real justice of yielding obedience an- 
other. But was no motive arising from fear also 
to be applied? There was much to be feared 
from the very nature of things : from the misery 
which, in the way of natural and necessary con- 
sequence alone, must follow from opposition to 
the will of God, and the wilful corrupting of a 
nature created upright. Now, since this was 
what the creature was liable to, the administra- 
tion of the Divine government would have been 
obviously defective, had this been concealed by 
Him who had himself established that natural 



CH. XIX.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



411 



order, by which disobedience to the will of God, 
in a moral being, should be followed by certain 
misery, and he would apparently have been 
chargeable with not having used every means, 
consistent with free agency, to prevent so fatal a 
result. So far we conceive that this is indubitable. 

But now let us suppose that nothing less than 
a positive penalty, of the most tremendous kind, 
could be a sufficient motive to deter these free 
and rational beings from transgression ; that 
even that threatened penalty itself, though the 
greatest possible evil, would not, in all cases, be 
sufficient ; but that in none a less powerful motive 
would prove sufficiently cautionary ; then, in such 
circumstances, the moral perfection of the Divine 
nature, his universal rectitude and benevolence, 
would undoubtedly require the ordination of that 
penalty, however tremendous. The case might 
be a choice between the universal disobedience 
of all, and their being left to the miseries which 
follow from sin by natural consequence ; and the 
preservation of some, perhaps the majority, 
though the guilty remainder should not only be 
punished by the misery which is the natural re- 
sult of vice, but, in addition, should be subject 
to that positive penalty of death, which, as to 
the soul, runs on with immortality, and is, there- 
fore, eternal. 

On such an alternative as this, which may 
surely be conceived possible, and which contra- 
dicts no attribute of God, does the essential jus- 
tice or rectitude of the Divine nature demand 
that such a penalty should be adopted? The 
affirmative of this question will be supported, I 
think, by the following considerations : — 

1. The holiness of God, which, as we have seen, 
is so intense as to abhor and detest every kind 
and degree of moral evil, would, from its very 
nature, its active and irreconcilable opposition 
to evil, determine to the adoption of the most 
effectual means of preventing its introduc- 
tion among the rational beings which should be 
created, and, when introduced, of checking and 
limiting its progress. So that, in proportion to 
that aversion, must be his propension to adopt 
the most effectual means to deter his creatures 
from it ; and if nothing less than such a penalty 
could be effectual, even in the majority of cases, 
then it resulted necessarily, from the holiness of 
God, that the penalty of death, in all its scrip- 
tural extent, should be attached to transgression. 

2. The consideration of the essential justice 
or rectitude of God, that principle which leads 
to an unchangeable respect to what is right and 
equitably ./«/, leads to the same conclusion. God 
has his own rights as maker, and, therefore, pro- 
prietor and Lord of all creatures, and it is fit 
they should bo maintained and vindicated. To 



surrender them, or unsteadily and uncertainly to 
assert them, would be an encouragement to evil ; 
and his very regard to mere abstract right and 
moral fitness must, therefore, be considered as 
determining God to a steady and unchangeable 
assertion of his rights, since their surrender could 
present no end worthy of his character, or con- 
sistent with his holiness. But wherever more 
created beings exist than one, the rights of others 
also come into consideration ; both the indirect 
right of a dependent creature under government 
to be protected, as far as may be, from the con- 
tagion of bad example, and the more direct right 
of protection from those injuries which many 
sins do, in their own nature, imply. For no man 
can be ambitious, unjust, etc., without inflicting 
injury upon others. The essential rectitude of 
God was concerned, therefore, to regard these 
rights in the creatures dependent upon him, and 
to adopt such a legal constitution and mode of 
government, under which to place them, as should 
respect the maintenance of his own rights of 
sovereignty, and the righteous claims which his 
creatures, that is, the general society of created 
beings, had upon him. All this, it may be said, 
only proves that the essential rectitude of God 
required that such a government should be 
adopted as should inflict some marked penalty on 
offences. It proves this, but it proves more, 
namely, that the Divine rectitude required that 
the most effectual means should be adopted to up- 
hold these rights, both as they existed primarily 
in God, and secondarily in his creatures. This 
must follow ; for if there was any obligation to 
uphold them at all, it was an obligation to uphold 
them in the most effectual manner, since, if in- 
effectual means only had been adopted, when 
more effectual means were at hand, a wilful 
abandonment of those rights would have been 
implied. If, therefore, there were no means 
equally effectual for these purposes as the issuing 
of a law, accompanied by a sanction of death as 
its penalty, the essential rectitude of God re- 
quired its adoption. 

3. The same may be said of the Divine good- 
ness and wisdom ; for, as the former is tenderly 
disposed to preserve all sentient creatures from 
misery, so the latter would, of necessity, adopt 
the most effectual means of counteracting moral 
evil, which is the only source of misery in the 
creation of God. 

The whole question, then, depends on this, 
whether the penalty of death, as the punishment 
of sin, bo the most effectual means ol' accom- 
plishing this end : the answer to whioh is, to all 
who believo the Bible, that as this has aetually 
been adopted as the universal penalty of trans- 
gressing the Divine law, (see chapter xviii.,) and 



412 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



as this is confessedly the highest possible penalty, 
nothing less than this could be effectual to the 
purpose of government, and to the manifestation 
of the Divine holiness and rectitude. If it could, 
then a superfluous and excessive means has been 
adopted, for which no reason can be given, and 
which impeaches the wisdom of God, the office 
of which attribute it is to adapt means to ends 
by an exact adjustment ; if not, then it was re- 
quired by all the moral attributes of the Divine 
nature to which we have referred. 

The next question will be whether, since, as 
the result of the moral perfection of God, a legal 
constitution has been established among rational 
creatures which accords life to obedience, and de- 
nounces death against transgression, the justice 
of God obliges to the execution of the penalty ; 
or whether we have any reason to conclude that 
the rights of God are in many or in all cases 
relaxed, and punishment remitted. All the op- 
ponents of the doctrine of atonement strenuously 
insist upon this ; and argue, first, that God has 
an unquestionable power of giving up his own 
rights, and pardoning sin on prerogative, with- 
out any compensation whatever; second, that 
when repentance succeeds to offence, there is a 
moral fitness in forgiveness, since the person 
offending presents an altered and reformed char- 
acter ; and finally, that the very affections of 
goodness and mercy, so eminent in the Divine 
character, require us to conclude that he is al- 
ways ready, upon repentance, to forgive the de- 
linquencies of all his creatures, or, at most, to 
make their punishments light and temporary. 

In the first of these arguments, it is con- 
tended that God may give up his own rights. 
This must mean either his right to obedience 
from his creatures, or his right to punish dis- 
obedience, when that occurs. With respect to 
God's right to be obeyed, nothing can be more 
obvious than that the perfect rectitude of his 
nature forbids him to give up or to relax that 
right at all. No king can morally give up his 
right to be obeyed in the full degree which may 
be enjoined by the laws of his kingdom. No 
parent can give up his right to obedience, in 
things lawful, from his children, and be blame- 
less. In both cases, if this be done voluntarily, 
it argues an indifference to that principle of 
rectitude on which such duties depend, and, 
therefore, a moral imperfection. Now this 
cannot be attributed to God, and, therefore, he 
never can yield up his right to be obeyed, which 
is both agreeable to abstract rectitude, and is, 
moreover, for the benefit of the creature him- 
self, as the contrary would be necessarily in- 
jurious to him. But may he not give up his 
right to punish, when disobedience has actually 



taken place? Only, it is manifest, where he 
would not appear by this to give up his claim to 
obedience, which would be a winking at offence ; 
and where he has not absolutely bound himself 
to punish. But neither of these can occur here. 
It is only by punitive acts that the Supreme 
Governor makes it manifest that he stands upon 
his right to be obeyed, and that he will not relax 
it. If no punishment ensue, then it must fol- 
low that that right is given up. From the . 
same principle that past offences are regarded 
with impunity, it would also follow that all 
future ones might be overlooked in like manner ; 
and thus government would be abrogated, and 
the obligation of subjection to God be, in effect, 
cancelled. If, again, impunity were confined 
to a few offenders, then would there be par- 
tiality in God ; if it were extended to all, then 
would he renounce his sovereignty, and show 
himself indifferent to that love of rectitude 
which is the characteristic of a holy being, and 
to that moral order which is the character of a 
righteous governor. But, in addition to this, 
we have already seen that, by a formal law, 
punishment is actually threatened, and that in 
the extreme, and in all cases of transgression 
whatever. Now, from this it follows, that 
nothing less than the attachment of such a 
penalty to transgression was determined by the 
wisdom of God to be sufficient to uphold the 
authority of his laws among his creatures : that 
even this security, in all instances, would not 
deter them from sin ; and, therefore, that a less 
awful sanction would have been wholly inade- 
quate to the case. If so, then not to exact the 
penalty is to repeal the law, to reduce its sanc- 
tion to an empty threat, unworthy the veracity 
of God, and to render it altogether inert, inas- 
much as it would be soon discovered whether sin 
were followed by punishment or not. This is a 
principle so fully recognized in human govern- 
ments, that their laws have generally defined 
the measure of punishment, and the fact being 
proved, the punishment follows as a thing of 
course in the regular order of administration. 
It is true, that a power of pardon is generally 
lodged with the prince ; but the reason of this 
is, the imperfection which must necessarily 
cleave to all human institutions, so that there 
may be circumstances in the offence which 
the law could not provide against; or there 
may be an expediency or reason of state which 
supposes some compromise of stricjt principle, 
some weakness on the part of the sovereign 
power, some desire to disarm resentment, or to 
obtain popularity, or to gratify some powerful 
interest. But these are the exceptions, not the 
rule ; for, in general, the supreme power pro- 



CH. XIX.] 

ceeds calmly and firmly in the exercise of puni- 
tive justice, in order to maintain the authority 
of the laws, and to deter others from offending. 
Now, none of those imperfections, or sinister 
interests, which interfere to produce these ex- 
ceptions, can have any place in the Divine 
government; and even if it could be proved 
that, in some special cases, exceptions might 
occur in the administration of God, yet this would 
not meet the case of those who would establish 
the hope of pardon in behalf of offending men 
upon the prerogative of God to relax his own 
rights and to remit punishment, since what is 
required is to prove that there is a general rule 
of pardon, not a few special cases of exemption 
from the denounced penalty. It may, there- 
fore, be confidently concluded, that there is no 
relaxation of right in the Divine administration, 
and no forgiveness of sin by the exercise of mere 
prerogative. 

The notion which has been added to this, 
that repentance, on the part of the offender, 
places him in a new relation, and renders him a 
fit object of pardon, will be found equally falla- 
cious. 

This argument assumes that, in a case of im- 
penitence, the moral fitness which is supposed 
to present itself in the case of penitents to 
claim the exercise of forgiveness does not exist, 
and, therefore, that it would be morally unfit, 
that is, wrong, to exercise it. This is, indeed, 
expressly conceded by Socinus, who says, that 
not to give pardon, in case of impenitence, is 
due to the rectitude and equity of God. 1 It 
follows, then, that the principle before stated, 
that the prerogative of God enables him to for- 
give sin, must be given up by all who hold that 
it is only when repentance takes place that a 
moral fitness is created for the exercise of this 
act of grace. Upon their own showing, sin is 
not, and cannot, consistently with rectitude, be 
forgiven by a voluntary surrender of right, or 
from mere compassion; but, in order to make 
this an act of moral fitness, that is, a right and 
proper proceeding, some consideration must be 
presented, independent of the misery to which 
the offender has exposed himself, and which 
misery is the object of pity : something which 
shall make it right as well as merciful in God to 
forgive. Those who urge that repentance is this 
consideration, do thus, unwittingly, give up their 
own principle, and tacitly adopt that of the 
Satisfactionists, differing only as to what does 
actually constitute it right in God to forgive. 



1 " Non rcsipiscontibus voniam non concede™, id demum 
Datura Divinae, et decrotis ejus, et proptorea ivetitudini, ot 
equitati dobitura oat ac confleataneum."— Socin. de&rvit. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



413 



But the sufficiency of mere repentance to con- 
stitute a moral fitness in forgiveness, all who 
consider the death of Christ as a necessary 
atonement for sin do, of course, deny; and 
there are, indeed, many considerations suggested 
to us by turning to our true guide, the Scrip- 
tures, wholly unfavorable to this opinion. 

In the first place, we find no intimation in 
them that the penalty of the law is not to be 
executed in case of repentance : certainly there 
was none given in the promulgation of the law to 
Adam : there is none in the decalogue : none 
in any of those passages in the Old and New 
Testaments which speak of the legal con- 
sequences of sin, as, "the wages of sin is 
death:" "the soul that sinneth it shall die," 
etc. Repentance is enjoined, both in the Old 
and New Testaments, it is true, but then it is in 
connection with a system of atonement and 
satisfaction, independent of repentance: with 
sacrifices under the Mosaic institution, and with 
the death and redemption of Christ under the 
new covenant. In both, something more is re- 
ferred to, as the means of human recovery, 
besides repentance, and of which, indeed, repent- 
ance itself is represented as an effect and fruit. 
Wherever the Divine Being and his creatures 
are regarded simply in their legal relation, 
one as governor, the other as subjects, there is 
certainly no such qualification of the threaten- 
ings of his violated law as to warrant any one 
to expect remission of punishment upon repent- 
ance. 

2. It is not true that repentance changes, as 
they urge, the legal relation of the guilty to 
God, whom they have offended. They are 
offenders still, though penitent. The sentence 
of the law is directed against transgression, and 
repentance does not annihilate, but, on the con- 
trary, acknowledges the fact of that transgression. 
The charge lies against the offender : he may be 
an obdurate or a penitent criminal; but, in 
either case, he is equally criminal of all for which 
he stands truly charged, and how then can his 
relation to the lawgiver be changed by repent- 
ance ? In the nature of the thing, nothing but 
pardon can change that relation; for nothing 
but pardon can cancel crime, and it is clear that 
repentance is not pardon. 

3. So far from repentance producing this 
change of relation, and placing men in the same 
situation as though they had never offended, wo 
have proofs to the contrary, both from the 
Scriptures and from the established course of 
providence. For the first, though men are now 
under a dispensation of grace, yet, alter long- 
continued obstinacy and refusal of grace, the 
Scriptures represent repentance as incapable of 



414 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



turning away the coming vengeance. ''Because 
I have called, and ye refused : I have stretched 
out my hand, and no man regarded — when your 
fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction 
as a whirlwind, when distress and anguish 
cometh upon you : then shall they call upon me, 
but I will not answer ; they shall seek me early, 
but they shall not find me." Here, to call upon 
God, and to seek him early, that is, earnestly 
and carefully, are acts of repentance and refor- 
mation too, and yet they have no effect in 
changing the relation of the guilty to God, their 
judge, and they are proceeded against for their 
past offences, which, according to the theory of 
the Socinians, they ought not to be. The course 
of providence in this life is also in opposition 
to the notion of the efficacy of mere repentance 
to arrest punishment. For, as Bishop Butler has 
so well shown, [Analogy of Natural and Revealed 
Religion,) the sufferings which follow sin in this 
present life, by natural consequence and the esta- 
blished constitution of things, are as much the 
effect of God's appointment as the direct penal- 
ties attached by him to the violation of his laws ; 
and though they may differ in degree, that does 
not affect the question. Whether the punish- 
ment be of long or of short duration, inflicted in 
the present state or in the next, if the justice or 
benevolence of God requires that punishment 
should not be inflicted, when repentance has 
taken place, it cannot be inflicted consistently 
with those attributes in any degree whatever. 
But repentance does not prevent these penal 
consequences : repentance does not restore health 
injured by intemperance, property wasted by 
profusion, or character dishonored by an evil 
practice. The moral administration under which 
we are, therefore, shows that indemnity is not 
necessarily the effect of repentance in the pre- 
sent life, and we have, consequently, no reason 
to conclude that it will be so in another. 

4. The true nature of repentance, as it is 
stated in the Scriptures, seems entirely to have 
been overlooked or disregarded by those who 
contend that repentance is a reason for the non- 
execution of the penalty of the law. It is either 
a sorrow for sin, merely because of the painful 
consequences to which it has exposed the offender, 
unless forgiven, or it arises from a perception also 
of the evil of sin, and a dislike to it as such, with 
real remorse and sorrow that the authority of 
God has been slighted, and his goodness abused. 
Now, if by repentance is meant repentance in 
the former sense, then to give pardon on such a 
condition would be tantamount to the entire and 
absolute repeal of all law, and the annihilation of 
all government, since every criminal, when con- 
victed, and finding himself in immediate danger 



of punishment, would as necessarily repent as he 
would necessarily be sorry to be liable to pain ; 
and this sorrow being, in that case, repentance, 
it would in all cases, according to this doctrine, 
render it morally fit and right that forgiveness 
should be exercised, and, consequently, wrong 
that it should be refused. In no case, therefore, 
could the penalty of the law be, in any degree, 
enforced. 

But if repentance be taken in the second 
sense — and this is certainly the light in which 
true repentance is exhibited in the Scriptures — 
then it is forgotten that such is the corrupt state 
of man, that he is incapable of penitence of this 
kind. This follows from that view of human de- 
pravity which we have already established from 
the Scriptures, and which we need not repeat. 
In conformity with this view of the entire cor- 
ruptness of man's nature, therefore, repentance 
is said to be the gift of Christ, who, in conse- 
quence of being exalted to be a Prince and a 
Saviour, "gives repentance," as well as "remis- 
sion of sins;" a gift quite superfluous, if to 
repent truly were in the power of man, and in- 
dependent of Christ. To suppose man to be 
capable of a repentance which is the result of 
genuine principle, is to assume human nature to 
be what it is not. The whole rests on this ques- 
tion; for, if man be totally corrupt, the only 
principles from which that repentance and cor- 
rection of manners, which are supposed in the 
argument, can flow, do not exist in his nature ; 
and if we allow no more than that the propen- 
sity to evil in him is stronger than the propensity 
to good, it would be absurd to suppose that, in 
opposing propensities, the weaker should ever 
resist the more powerful. 

But take it that repentance, in the best inter- 
pretation, is possible to fallen, unassisted man, 
and that it is actually exercised and followed 
even by a better conduct ; still, in no good sense 
can it be shown that this would make it morally 
right and fit in the Supreme Being to forgive 
offences against his government. Socinus, we 
have seen in the above quotation, allows that it 
would not be right, not consistent with God's 
moral attributes, to forgive the impenitent ; and 
all, indeed, who urge repentance as the sole con- 
dition of pardon, adopt the same principle ; but 
how, then, does it appear that to grant pardon 
upon repentance is right, that is, just in itself, 
or a manifestation of a just and righteous go- 
vernment ? 

If right be taken in the sense of moral fitness, 
its lowest sense, the moral correspondence of one 
thing with another, it cannot be morally fit in a 
perfectly holy being to be so indifferent to of- 
fences as not to express, toward the offenders, 



CH. 



XIX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



415 



any practical displeasure of any kind ; yet this 
the argument supposes, since the slightest in- 
fliction of punishment, should repentance take 
place, would be contrary to the principle as- 
sumed. If justice be taken in the sense of giving 
to every one what is due, the Divine Being can- 
not be just in this sense, should he treat an 
offender, though afterward penitent, precisely as 
he treats those who have persevered in obedi- 
ence, without defect of any kind; and yet, if 
repentance be pleaded as a moral reason for en- 
tirely overlooking offence, then will all be treated 
alike, whether obedient or the contrary. But 
finally, if the justice of God be considered with 
reference to government, the impossibility of exo- 
nerating a penitent offender and the upholding 
of a righteous administration is most apparent. 
That we are under government is certain — that 
we are under a settled law is equally so, and that 
law explains to us the nature of the government 
by which we are controlled. In all the state- 
ments made respecting this government in Scrip- 
ture, the government of earthly sovereigns and 
magistrates is the shadow under which it is re- 
presented, and the one is the perfect model after 
which the other has been imperfectly framed. 
Nothing that is said of God being a father is 
ever adduced to lower his claims as Lord, or to 
diminish the reverence and fear of his creatures 
toward him under that character. The penalty 
of transgression is death. This is too plainly 
written in the Scriptures to be, for a moment, 
denied, and if it were righteous to attach that 
penalty to offence, it is most certainly righteous 
to execute it; and, therefore, administrative 
justice cannot be maintained if it be not executed. 
As to the impenitent, this, indeed, is conceded ; 
but penitence makes no difference ; for if the 
end of attaching this penalty to offence was to 
maintain the authority of the law, then not to 
execute it upon the repentant would still be to 
annul that authority. This repentance is either 
in the power of the transgressor, or it is not. If 
the former, he will always be disposed to exer- 
cise it, when the danger approaches, rather than 
die ; and so he may sin as often as he pleases, 
and yet have it always in his own power to turn 
aside the punishment, which amounts to a sub- 
stantive repeal of the law, and the abrogation of 
all government. If, on the other hand, the pro- 
duction of a penitent disposition is not in his own 
power, and can only come from above, as a mat- 
ter of grace, it is a strange anomaly to suppose 
a government so established as to oblige the 
governor to concur in producing repentance in 
thoso who despise his authority, so that they may 
avoid punishment. This would be grace, and not 
latv, most emphatically; for, if the governor 



were bound by any principle of any kind to pro- 
duce this sentiment of repentance in order to 
constitute a moral fitness in the exercise of par- 
don, he would, for any thing we can see, be 
bound by it to use the same means to render all 
penitent, that all might escape punishment, and 
to do this, too, as often as they fell into sin, that 
punishment might in no case follow, except 
when the means employed by him for that pur- 
pose were obstinately resisted ; and thus repent- 
ance would be brought in as the substitute of 
obedience. But since the end of law is to com- 
mand obedience, and it is invested with authority 
for the purpose of effecting that, it ceases to an- 
swer the purpose for which it was established, 
when it accepts repentance in the place of obe- 
dience. This is not its end, as an instrument of 
moral government ; nor is it a means to its pro- 
per end, which is obedience; for repentance can 
give no security for future obedience, since a peni- 
tent transgressor, whose nature is infected with 
a corrupt moral principle and habit, is much 
more liable to sin again than when innocent, as 
in his first estate ; and as this scheme makes no 
provision at all for the moral cure of man's fallen 
nature by the renewing influences of the Holy 
Spirit, so it abolishes all law as an instrument of 
moral order, and substitutes pardon as an end 
of government instead of obedience. 

With this view of the insufficiency of repent- 
ance to obtain pardon the Scriptures agree ; for 
not now to advert to the doctrine of the Old 
Testament, which will be subsequently considered, 
we need only refer to the gospel, which is pro- 
fessedly a declaration of the mercy of God to 
sinning men, and which also professedly lays 
down the means by which the pardon of their 
offences is to be attained. Without entering at 
all into other subjects connected with this, it is 
enough here to show that, in the gospel, pardon 
is not connected with mere repentance, as it must 
have been, had the doctrine against which we 
have contended been true. John the Baptist 
was emphatically a preacher of repentance, and, 
had nothing but mere repentance been required 
in order to salvation, he would have been the 
most successful of preachers. So numerous were 
the multitudes which submitted to the power of 
his ministry, that the largest terms are used by 
the Evangelist Matthew to express the effect pro- 
duced by it: "Then went out to him Jerusalem 
and all Judea, and all the region round about Jor- 
dan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, con- 
fessing their sins." Of the truth of their re- 
pentance, no doubt is expressed. On the eon t vary, 
when John excepts only "many o\' the Saddu- 
cees and Pharisees" who oame " to his baptism" 
as hypocrites, wo are bound to conclude that 



416 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART H. 



lie, who appears to have had the supernatural 
gift of discovering the spirits of men, allowed 
the repentance of the rest generally to be gen- 
uine. It would follow then, from the principle 
laid down by the adversaries of the doctrine of 
the atonement of Christ, namely, that repentance 
alone renders it morally fit in God to forgive sin, 
and that, therefore, he can require nothing else 
but true repentance in order to pardon, that the 
disciples of the Baptist needed not to look for 
any thing beyond what their master was the in- 
strument of imparting by his ministry. But this 
is contradicted by the fact. He taught them to 
look for a higher baptism, that of the Holy 
Ghost; and to a more effectual teacher, the 
Christ, whose voice or herald he was : all he did 
and said bore upon it a preparatory character, 
and to this character he was most careful to give 
the utmost distinctness, that his hearers might 
not be mistaken. He said to them, as he saw 
Jesus coming unto him, "Behold the Lamb of God, 
which taketh away the sin of the world;" and 
thus he confessed that it was not himself, nor his 
doctrine, nor the repentance which it produced, 
which took away sin ; but that it was taken away 
by Christ alone, and that in his sacrificial char- 
acter, as "the Lamb of God." Nay, what, in- 
deed, is still more explicit, he himself declares 
that everlasting life was not attained by the re- 
pentance which he preached, but by believing on 
Christ ; for he concludes his discourse concern- 
ing Jesus (John iii. 36) with these memor- 
able words, " He that believeth on the Son hath 
everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the 
Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God 
abideth on him." The testimony of John was, 
therefore, that more than repentance, even faith 
in Christ, was necessary to salvation. Such also 
was the doctrine of our Lord himself, though he 
too was a preacher of repentance ; and that of 
the apostles, who, proclaiming that "all men 
everywhere" should repent, not less explicitly 
preached that all men everywhere should be- 
lieve; and that they were "justified by faith," 
and thus had "peace with God through our Lord 
Jesus Christ." 



CHAPTER XX. 

REDEMPTION — DEATH OE CHRIST PROPITIATORY. 

These points, then, being so fully established, 
that sin is neither forgiven by the mere preroga- 
tive of God, nor upon the account of mere re- 
pentance in man, we proceed to inquire into the 
Scripture account of the real consideration on 



which the execution of the penalty of transgres- 
sion is delayed, and the offer of forgiveness is 
made to offenders. 

To the statements of the New Testament we 
shall first direct our attention, and then point out 
that harmony of doctrine on this subject which 
pervades the whole Scriptures, and makes both 
the Old and New Testaments give their agreeing 
testimony to that one method of love, wisdom, 
and justice, by which a merciful God justifies the 
ungodly. 

1. The first thing which strikes every atten- 
tive, and, indeed, every cursory reader of the 
New Testament, must be, that the pardon of our 
sin, and our entire salvation, is ascribed to the 
death of Christ. TVe do not, now, inquire in 
what sense his death availed to these great re- 
sults ; but we at present only state that, in some 
sense, our salvation is expressly and emphatically 
connected with that event. "I lay down my 
life for the sheep." "He gave himself for us." 
He died, " the just for the unjust, that he might 
bring us to God." "Christ was once offered to 
bear the sins of many." "While we were yet 
sinners, Christ died for us." " In whom we have 
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of 
sins." He "came to give his life a ransom for 
many. " ' < "We who were afar off are made nigh by 
the blood of Christ." " Unto him that loved us and 
washed us from our sins in his own blood:" with 
innumerable other passages, in which, with equal 
emphasis, the salvation of man is connected with 
the death of Christ. 

This is so undeniable, that it is, to a certain 
extent, recognized in the two great schemes op- 
posed to that which has been received generally 
by the Church of Christ, which in all ages has 
proclaimed that the death of Christ was an ex- 
piatory sacrifice for the sins of men, and neces- 
sary to make the exercise of pardon consistent 
with the essential righteousness of God, and with 
his righteous government. The Socinian scheme 
admits that the death of Christ was important to 
confirm his doctrine, and to lead to his resurrec- 
tion, the crowning miracle by which its truth was 
demonstrated; and that we have redemption 
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, be- 
cause " we are led, by the due consideration of 
Christ's death, and its consequences, to that re- 
pentance which, under the merciful constitution 
of the Divine government, always obtains for- 
giveness." The second scheme, which is that of 
the modern Arians, goes farther. It represents 
the coming of Christ, whom they consider to be 
the most exalted of the creatures of God, into 
the world, and his labors and sufferings in be- 
half of men, as acts of the most disinterested 
and tender benevolence, in reward and honor of 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



417 



which he is allowed to bestow pardon upon his 
disciples, upon their sincere repentance, and to 
plead his interest with God, who delights to honor 
the generous conduct of his Son toward the hu- 
man race. His voluntary sufferings and death 
for the sins of mankind, according to them, gave 
to his intercession with God great efficacy, and 
thus, by his mediation, sinners are reconciled to 
God, and raised to eternal life. 

Far as even the latter of these theories falls 
below the sense of Scripture on this subject, yet 
both are in this respect important, that they 
concede that the death of Christ, as the means 
of human salvation, is made so prominent in the 
New Testament, that it cannot be left out of our 
consideration when the doctrine of man's salva- 
tion is treated of; and also, that this is a doc- 
trine of the Holy Scriptures which must, in some 
way or other, be accounted for and explained. 
The Socinian accounts for it by making the death 
of Christ the means by which repentance is pro- 
duced in the heart of man, so as to constitute it 
morally fit that he should be forgiven. The 
modern Arian accounts for it by connecting with 
this notion that kind of merit in the death of 
Christ which arises from a generous and benevo- 
lent self-devotion; and which, when pleaded by 
him in the way of mediation, God is pleased to 
honor by accepting repentance, when it is pro- 
duced in the heart, and accompanied with pur- 
poses of amendment, in place of perfect obedi- 
ence. 

2, But the views given us of the death of 
Christ by the writers of the New Testament go 
much farther than these, because they represent 
the death of Christ as necessary to the salvation 
of men — a principle which both the hypotheses 
just mentioned wholly exclude. The reason of 
forgiveness is placed by one in repentance merely ; 
by the other also in the exercise of the right 
which God had to pardon, but which he chose to 
exercise in honor of the philanthropy of Jesus 
Christ. Both make the death of Christ, though 
in a different way and in a very subordinate 
sense, the means of obtaining pardon, because 
it is a means of bringing men into a state in 
which they are fit objects for the exercise of an 
act of grace ; but the Scripture doctrine is, that 
the death of Christ is not the meritorious means, 
but the meritorious cause of the exercise of for- 
giveness ; and repentance but one of the instru- 
mental means of actually obtaining it ; and, in 
consistency with this view, they speak of the 
death of Christ, not as one of many means by 
which the same end might have been accom- 
plished, but as, in the strictest senso, necessary 
to man's salvation. 

This, has, indeed, boen considered, oven by 
27 



some divines professing orthodoxy, to be a bold 
position, but, as we shall see, with little consist- 
ency on their part. It follows, of course, from 
the Socinian and Arian hypotheses, that if our 
Lord were a man, or an angelic creature, and 
if he were rather the mere messenger of a mercy 
which might be exercised on prerogative, than 
the procuring cause of it, any other creature 
beside himself might have conveyed the message 
of this mercy ; might have exhibited a generous 
devotion in our behalf; and been an effectual in- 
strument to bring men to that repentance which 
would prepare them to receive it. But when it 
is admitted that Christ was the Divine Son of 
God; that he was "God manifest in the flesh;" 
that the forgiveness of sin required a satisfaction 
to Divine justice of so noble and infinitely exalted 
a kind as that which was offered by the suffer- 
ings and death of the incarnate Deity, even from 
such premises alone it would seem necessarily to 
follow that, but for the interposition of Christ, 
sin could not have been forgiven, consistently 
with a perfectly righteous government, and, 
therefore, not forgiven at all, unless a sacrifice 
of equal merit, which supposes a being of equal 
glory and dignity as its subject, could have been 
found. If no such being existed out of the God- 
head, then human hope rested solely on the vol- 
untary incarnation of the Son of God ; and the 
overwhelming fact and mystery of his becoming 
flesh, in order to suffer for us, itself shows that 
the case to be remedied was one of a character 
absolutely extreme, and, therefore, not otherwise 
remediable. If inferior means had been suffi- 
cient, then more was done by the Father, when 
he delivered up his Son for us, than was neces- 
sary — a conclusion of an impious character ; and 
if the greatest possible gift was bestowed, then 
nothing less could have been effectual, and this 
was necessary to human salvation. Every be- 
liever in the Divinity of Christ is bound to this 
conclusion. 

This matter is, however, put beyond all reason- 
able question by the testimony of Scripture : 
" Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ 
to suffer, and to rise from the dead." Here a ne- 
cessity for the death of Christ is plainly expressed. 
If it be said that the necessity was the fulfil- 
ment of what "had been written" in the prophets 
concerning the sufferings of Messiah, it is to be 
remembered that what was predicted on this 
subject by the prophets arose out of a previous 
appointment of God, in whose eternal counsel 
Christ had boen designated as tho Redeemer of 
man ; and that the sole end and reason of tho 
death of Christ could not, therefore, bo tho move 
fulfilment of tho prophecies respecting him. Tho 
verso which follows abundantly provos this — 



418 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



"And that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name." Luke xxiv. 47. 
His death was not only necessary for the accom- 
plishment of prophecy, but for the publication 
of "repentance and remission of sins in his 
name;" both of which, therefore, depended upon 
it. It was God's purpose to offer forgiveness to 
man, before the prophets issued their predic- 
tions; it was his purpose to do this in "his 
name," on account of and in consideration of his 
dying for them ; this was predicted ; but the ne- 
cessity of the death of Christ rested on this pre- 
vious appointment to which the prophecies cor- 
responded. In Matthew xvi. 21, the same sen- 
timent is expressed without any reference to the 
fulfilment of prophecy: "From that time forth 
began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that 
he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things 
of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and 
be killed, and be raised again the third day." 
The answer, too, of our Lord to Peter, who, upon 
this declaration, said, "Be it far from thee, Lord: 
this shall not be unto thee," is remarkable : "But 
he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind 
me, Satan : thou art an offence to me ; for thou 
savorest not the things that be of God, but those 
that be of men." These words plainly imply, 
that for Christ to suffer and die, and in this man- 
ner, and not according to the carnal and human 
views of Peter, to accomplish the purpose of his 
coming into the world, was " of God :" it was his 
purpose, his appointment. This is not language 
to be used as to a martyr dying to prove his sin- 
cerity ; for death, in such cases, is rather per- 
mitted than purposed and appointed, and it would 
be to adopt language never applied to such cases 
in the Holy Scriptures, to say that the sufferings 
and death of martyrs are " of God." The ne- 
cessity of Christ's death, then, rested on Divine 
appointment, and that on the necessity of the 
case; and if he "must" die, in order that we 
might live, then we live only in consequence of 
his death. 

The same view is conveyed by a strongly figura- 
tive expression in John xii. 23, 24: "And Jesus 
answered them, saying, The hour is come, that 
the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat 
fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone ; 
but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." From 
which it inevitably follows, that the death of 
Christ was as necessary to human salvation as 
the vegetable death of the seed of corn to the 
production of the harvest ; necessary, therefore, 
in this sense, that one could not take place with- 
out the other. But for this he would have re- 
mained "alone," and have brought no " sons to 
glory." 



[part n. 

In a word, all those passages of Scripture 
which speak of our salvation from death and 
misery by the sufferings of Christ, and call upon 
Our gratitude on this account, are founded upon 
the same doctrine. These are too numerous to 
be cited, and are sufficiently familiar : "We have 
redemption through his blood :" "we shall be saved 
from wrath through him," etc. Such forms of 
speech are continually occurring, and the highest 
ascriptions of praise are given to the Father and 
to the Son on this account. But, most clearly, 
they all suppose that "wrath" and "death," but 
for this interposition of the passion of Christ on 
our account, would have been the doom of sin- 
ning men. They contain not the most distant in- 
timation that had not he come into the world 
"to seek and to save" them that were " lost, ,J they 
would have been saved by any other means : that 
had not he, the good Shepherd, laid down his 
life for the sheep, they would have been brought 
by some other process into the heavenly fold. 
The very emphasis of the expression "lost" im- 
plies a desperate case ; for, as lost, they could not 
have been described, if pardon had been offered 
them on mere repentance ; and if the death of 
Christ had been one only of many means, through 
some of which that disposition in God to forgive 
offenders must have operated, which is the doc- 
trine of all who set up the goodness of the Divine 
government against its justice. In that case, man- 
kind could not have been in a hopeless state, in- 
dependent of Christ's redemption — the view which 
is uniformly taken of their case in Scripture, 
where the death of Christ is exhibited, not as 
one expedient of many, but as the only hope of 
the guilty. 

3. The Scriptures, in speaking of the death of 
Christ, inform us that he died "for us;" that 
is, in our room and stead. With this represen- 
tation neither of the hypotheses to which we 
have adverted, as attempting to account for the 
importance attached to the death of our Lord in 
the New Testament, agrees, and, therefore, both 
of them fall far below the whole truth of the 
case. The Socinian scheme makes the death of 
Christ only an incidental benefit, as sealing the 
truth of his doctrine, and setting an example of 
eminent passive virtue. In this sense, indeed, 
they acknowledge that he died "for" men, be- 
cause in this indirect manner they derive the 
benefit of instruction from his death, and because 
some of the motives to virtue are placed in a 
stronger light. The modern Arian scheme, some- 
times called the intercession hypothesis, acknow- 
ledges that he acquired, by his disinterested and 
generous sufferings, the highest degree of virtue, 
and a powerful interest with God, by which his 
intercession on behalf of penitent offenders is 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



419 



honored by an exercise of higher mercy than 
would otherwise have taken place; but it by no 
means follows from this that repentance might 
not otherwise have taken place, and mercy have 
been otherwise exercised. According to this 
view, then, Christ died for the benefit, indeed, of 
men, somewhat more directly than on the Soci- 
nian scheme ; but he did not die for them in the 
sense of the Scriptures, that i3, in their room and 
stead ; his death was not vicarious, and it is not 
on that account, directly, that the guilty are ab- 
solved from condemnation. 

To prove that our Lord died for men, in the 
sense of dying in their stead, the testimony of 
the sacred writers must, however, be adduced, 
and it is equally abundant and explicit. St. 
Peter says he died, "the just for the unjust," 
that "he suffered for us." St. Paul, that "he 
died for all," that "he tasted death for every 
man," that he died u for the ungodly," that "he 
gave himself a ransom for all;" and our Lord 
himself declares that he " came to give his life a 
ransom for many." To show, however, that 
this phrase means no more than a final cause, 
and that the only notion intended to be conveyed 
is that Christ died for our benefit, it is argued, 
by the objectors, that the Greek prepositions 
used in the above quotations, vizlp and dvrl, do 
not always signify substitution; but are some- 
times to be rendered "on account of" as when 
Christ is said to have "suffered for our sins," 
which cannot be rendered instead of our sins. 
All this may, indeed, be granted ; but then it is 
as certain that these prepositions do often sig- 
nify substitution ; and that the Greeks, by these 
forms of expression, were wont to express a 
vicarious death, is abundantly proved by the 
examples given by Raphelius, on Romans v. 8. 
Nor are instances wanting of texts in which 
these particles can only be interpreted when 
taken in the sense of "instead of," and in "the 
place of." So in the speech of Caiaphas, "it is 
expedient that one man should die (vrclp) for the 
people, and that the whole nation perish not," 
he plainly declares that either Christ or the 
nation must perish; and that by putting the 
former to death, he would die instead of the 
nation. In Romans v. 6-8, the sense in which 
Christ " died for us," is indubitably fixed by the 
context : " For scarcely for a righteous man will 
one die, yet peradventure for a good man some 
would even dare to die; but God commendeth 
his love toward us, in that while we were yet 
sinners, Christ died for us:" on which passage 
Doddridge has obsorved, "One can hardly 
imagine any one would dio for a good man, un- 
less it wore to redeem his life by giving up his 
own." In this sense, also, dvrl is used by the 



LXX., 2 Sam. xviii. 33, where David says con- 
cerning Absalom, "Would God I had died for 
thee!" (dvrl gov.) Here he could mean nothing 
else but to wish that he had died in Absalom's 
stead. In the sense of "in the room or stead 
of," dvrl is also used in many places of the 
New Testament; as, "Archelaus did reign in 
Judea {dvrl) in the room of his father Herod:" 
"if he ask a fish, will he {dvrl) for a fish, in 
place or instead of a fish, give him a serpent?" 
When, therefore, the same preposition is used, 
Mark x. 45, "The Son of man came to give 
his life a ransom for {dvrl) many," there can 
surely be no reason drawn from the meaning 
of the particle itself to prevent its being so 
understood. That it may be so taken is certain, 
for this is a sense of the preposition constantly 
occurring ; and if that sense is rejected and 
another chosen, the reason must be brought 
from the contrariety of the doctrine which it 
conveys to some other; whereas not one passage 
is even pretended to be produced which denies 
that Christ did thus die in the stead of the un- 
godly, and give his life a ransom in the place or 
stead of the lives of many. The particles vizlp 
and dvrl have other senses : this is not denied ; 
but, as Bishop Stillingfleet has observed, "a 
substitution could not be more properly ex- 
pressed than it is in Scripture by them." 

The force of this has, at all times, been felt 
by the Socinians, and has rendered it necessary 
for them to resort to subterfuges. Socinus 
acknowledges, and after him Crellius, that, 
"when redemption is spoken of, dvrl implies 
commutation;" but they attempt to escape, by 
considering both the redemption and the com- 
mutation metaphorical. Dr. Priestley, too, ad- 
mits the probability of the interpretation of 
Christ's dying for us, being to die instead of us, 
and then contends that he did this consequen- 
tially and not directly so, " as a substitute for us ; 
for if, in consequence of Christ's not having been 
sent to instruct and reform the world, mankind 
had continued unreformed, and if the necessary 
consequence of Christ's coming was his death, 
by whatever means and in whatever manner it 
was brought about, it is plain that there was, in 
fact, no other alternative but his death or ours." 
[History of Corruptions, etc.) Thus, under the 
force of the docfrine of the New Testament, 
that Christ died in our stead, he admits the 
absolute necessity of the death of Christ in order 
to human salvation; contrary to all the prin- 
ciples he elsewhere lays down, and in refutation 
of his own objections and those of his fol- 
lowers to the orthodox view of the death of our 
Saviour, as being the only means by whioh lnoivy 
could be dispensed to mankind. But that Christ 



420 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



died for us directly as a substitute, which is 
still the point denied, is to he fully proved from 
those scriptures in which he is said to hare 
borne the punishment due to our offences; and 
this heing established, it puts an entire end to 
all quibbling on the import of the Greek pre- 
positions. 

To prove this, the passages of holy writ are 
exceedingly numerous ; but it will be more satis- 
factory to select a few, and point out their force, 
than to give a long list of citations. 

Grotius [De Satisfactione) thus clearly proves 
that the Scriptures represent our sins as the 
impulsive cause of the death of Christ : 

"Another cause which moved God was our 
sins, which deserve punishment. Christ was 
delivered for our offences. Rom. iv. 25. Here 
the apostle uses the preposition Sid with the 
accusative case, which with all Greek authors, 
sacred and profane, is the most usual manner 
of expressing an impulsive cause. For in- 
stance, Sid ravra, 'because of these things 
cometh the wrath of God upon the children of 
disobedience.' Eph. v. 6. Indeed, whenever 
the expression, because of sins, is coupled with 
the mention of sufferings, it never admits of 
any other interpretation. 'I will chastise you 
seven times because of your sins.' Lev. xxvi. 
28. 'Because of these abominations the Lord 
God cast them out from his sight.' Deut. xviii. 
12. So it is used in many other places of the 
sacred writings, and nowhere in a different 
sense. The expression, for sins, is also evi- 
dently of the same force, whenever it is con- 
nected with sufferings, as in the examples follow- 
ing: 'Christ died for our sins.' 1 Cor. xv. 3. 
' Christ hath once suffered for sins.' 1 Peter iii. 
18. ' Christ gave himself for our sins.' Gal. i. 
4. 'Christ offered one sacrifice for sins.' Heb. 
x. 12. In all which places we have either vnlp 
or TTEpl with the genitive case. But Socinus 
maintains that in all these places a final and not 
an impulsive cause is intended. He even goes 
so far as to assert that the Latin pro and the 
Greek virtp never denote an impulsive, but 
always a final cause. Many examples prove the 
latter assertion to be untrue. For both bnep 
and ivepl are used to signify no less an impulsive 
than a final cause. The Gentiles are said to 
praise God {yirlp hleovc) for his mercy. Rom. 
xv. 9. Paul says thanks are given (vTrep v/itiv) 
for you. Eph. i. 16. And (vnlp ndvruv) for all. 
Eph. v. 20. 'We pray you' (vnep Xpiarov) for 
Christ. 2 Cor. v. 20. ' Great is my glorying for 
you,' (vTrlp b/jL&v.) 2 Cor. vii. 4, ix. 2, and xii. 5. 
'Distresses {vnlp Xpiarov) for Christ,' 2 Cor. 
xii. 10. 'I thank God (virep vjuuv) for you.' 1 
Cor. i. 4. 'God shall reprove all the ungodly 



(irepi TidvTav ruv ipjuv dceSeiag) for all their 
works of ungodliness.' Jude 15. In the same 
manner, the Latins say, to give or render thanks 
(pro beneficiis) for benefits, as often in Cicero. 
He also says, ' to take vengeance (pro injuriis) 
for injuries ;' 'to suffer punishment (pro magni- 
tudine sceleris) for the greatness of a crime ;' 
to fear torments (pro maleficiis) for evil deeds. 
Plautus, ' to chastise (pro commerita noxia) for 
faults which deserve it.' And Terence, 'to 
take vengeance (pro dictis et factis) for words 
and deeds.' Certainly, in all these places, pro 
does not signify a final, but an impulsive cause. 
So, when Christ is said to have suffered and died 
for sins, the subject will not allow us, as Soci- 
nus wishes, to understand a final cause. Hence, 
also, as the Hebrew particle "p denotes an ante- 
cedent or impulsive cause, (see Psalm xxxviii. 9, 
and many other places, ) the words of Isaiah liii. 
cannot be better translated, or more agreeably 
with other scriptures, than, He was wounded 
on account of our transgressions : he was bruised 
on account of our iniquities. And what can 
Romans vi. 10 (jy djuapria drcedavev) denote, but 
that he died on account of sin ?" 

Crellius, who attempted an answer to Grotius, 
at length acknowledges sin to have been an 
impulsive cause of the death of Christ; but 
neutralizes the admission by sophistry ; on which 
Bishop Stillingfleet has well observed, that we 
understand not an impulsive cause in so remote 
a sense, as though our sins were an occasion of 
Christ's dying, so that his death was one argu- 
ment among many others to believe his doctrine, 
the belief of which would cause men to leave 
their sins ; but we contend for a nearer and 
more proper sense, that the death of Christ was 
primarily intended for the expiation of sins, 
with respect to God, and not to us, and that our 
sins, as an impulsive cause, are to be considered 
as so displeasing to God, that it was necessary, 
for the vindication of honor and the deterring 
the world from sin, that no less a sacrifice of 
atonement should be offered than the blood of 
the Son of God. The sufferings of Christ, when 
considered with respect to our sins, are to be 
considered as a punishment ; when with respect 
to God, as being designed to expiate them as a 
sacrifice of atonement. 

It is thus that Christ is said to bear our sins : 
"Who his ownself bare our sins in his own body 
on the tree," 1 Peter ii. 24; where the apostle 
evidently quotes from Isaiah liii.: "He shall 
bear their iniquities." "He bare the sin of 
many." The same expression is used by St. 
Paul, Heb. ix. 28: "So Christ was once offered 
to bear the sins of many." Now, to bear sin is, 
in the language of Scripture, to bear the punish- 



CH. XX.] 

ment of sin ; (Levit. xxii. 9 ; Ezekiel xviii. 20 ;) 
and the use of the compound verb dva<f>epo), by 
both apostles, is worthy of notice. St. Peter 
"might have said simply fjveyite, he bore; but 
wishing at the same time to signify his being 
lifted up on the cross, he said uvrjveyKe, he bore 
up, meaning, he bore by going up to the cross." 
(Grotius.) St. Paul, too, uses the same verb 
with reference to the Levitical sacrifices, which 
were carried to an elevated altar; and to the 
sacrifice of Christ. Socinus and his followers 
cannot deny that to bear sin, in Scripture gene- 
rally, signifies to bear the punishment of sin; 
but, availing themselves of the \ery force of the 
compound verb avatyepu, just pointed out, they 
interpret the passage in St. Peter to signify the 
bearing up, that is, the bearing or carrying 
away of our sins, which, according to them, may 
be effected in many other ways than by a vica- 
rious sacrifice. To this Grotius replies: ''The 
particle dvd, will not admit of such a sense, nor 
is the word ever so used by any Greek writer. 
In the New Testament it never occurs in such a 
meaning." It is also decisive as to the sense 
in which St. Peter uses the phrase to bear sin, 
that he quotes from Isaiah liii. 11, "For he 
shall bear their iniquities," where the Hebrew 
word, by the confession of all, is never used 
for taking away, but for bearing a burden, and 
is employed to express the punishment of sin, 
as in Lamentations v. 7, " Our fathers have 
sinned, and are not, and we have borne their 
iniquities." 

Similar to this expression of bearing sins, 
and equally impracticable to the criticism of the 
Socinians, is the declaration of Isaiah in the 
same chapter, "He was wounded for our trans- 
gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;" 
and then, to show in what sense he was wounded 
and bruised for our transgressions, he adds, 
" the chastisement of our peace was upon him, 
and with his stripes we are healed." Now, 
chastisement is the punishment of a fault ; but 
the suffering person of whom the prophet 
speaks is declared by him to be wholly free 
from transgression — to be perfectly and empha- 
tically innocent. This prophecy is applied to 
Christ by the apostles, whose constant doctrine 
is the entire immaculateness of their Master 
and Lord. If chastisement, therefore, was laid 
upon Christ, it could not be on account of faults 
of his own: his sufferings were the chastise- 
ment of our faults, the price of our peace, and 
his "stripes," another punitive expression, were 
borno by him for our "healing." Tho only 
course which Socinus and his followers havo 
taken, to endeavor to escape tho force of this 
passage, is to render tho word not chastisement, 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



421 



but affliction : in answer to which, Grotius and 
subsequent critics have abundantly proved that 
it is used not to signify affliction of any kind, 
but that which has the nature of punishment. 
These passages, therefore, prove a substitution, a 
suffering in our stead. The chastisement of 
offences was laid upon him, in order to our 
peace ; and the offences were ours, since they 
could not be his "who did no sin, neither was 
guile found in his mouth." 

The same view is presented to us under an- 
other and even still more forcible phrase, in the 
6th and 7th verses of the same chapter: "All 
we like sheep have gone astray : we have turned 
every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid 
on him [literally, hath made to meet on him] the 
iniquity of us all : he was oppressed and he was 
afflicted." Bishop Lowth translates this pas- 
sage, "And the Lord hath made to light upon him 
the iniquity of us all : it was exacted, and he 
was made answerable." In a similar manner, 
several former critics, (Vide Poli Synop.,) "He 
put or fixed together upon him the iniquity of us 
all: it was exacted, and he was afflicted." This 
sense is fully established by Grotius against So- 
cinus, and by Bishop Stillingfleet against Crel- 
lius, and thus the passage is obviously incapable 
of explanation, except by allowing the sufferings 
and death of our Lord to be vicarious. Our ini- 
quities, that is, according to the Hebrew mode 
of speaking, their punishment, are made to meet 
upon him : they are fixed together and laid upon 
him : the penalty is exacted from him, though he 
himself had incurred no penalty personally, and, 
therefore, it was in consequence of that vicari- 
ous exaction that he was "afflicted," was "made 
answerable," and, voluntarily submitting, "he 
opened not his mouth." 

In 2 Cor. v. 21, the apostle uses almost the 
same language : "For he hath made him to be 
sin [a sin offering] for us, who knew no sin ; 
that we might be made the righteousness of God 
in him." The Socinian Impi*oved Version has a 
note on this passage so obscure that the point is 
evidently given up in despair. Socinus before 
had attempted an elusive interpretation, which 
requires scarcely an effort to refute. By Christ's 
being made "sin," he would understand being 
esteemed a sinner by men. But, as Grotius ob- 
serves, (De Satisfactione,) neither is the Greek 
word, translated sin, nor the Hebrew word, an- 
swering to it, ever taken in such a sense. Be- 
sides, the apostle has attributed this act to God : 
it was he who made him to bo sin ; but ho cer- 
tainly did not cause the Jews and others to esteem 
Christ a wicked man. On the contrary, by a 
voice from heaven, and by miracles, ho did all 
that was proper to prove to all men his innocence. 



422 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



Further, St. Paul places "sin" and " righteous- 
ness" in opposition to each other — "we are made 
the righteousness of God," that is, are justified 
and freed from Divine punishment ; but, in order 
to this, Christ was " made sin," or bore our pun- 
ishment. There is also another antithesis in the 
apostle's words: God made him who knew no 
sin, and consequently deserved no punishment, 
to be sin ; that is, it pleased him that he should 
be punished ; but Christ was innocent, not only 
according to human laws, but according to the 
law of God : the antithesis, therefore, requires 
us to understand that ne bore the penalty of 
that law, and that he bore it in our stead. 

How explicitly the death of Christ is repre- 
sented in the New Testament as penal, which it 
could not be in any other way than by his taking 
our place, and suffering in our stead, is manifest 
also from Gal. iii. 13: "Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a cvirse 
[an execration] for us ; for it is written, Cursed 
is every one that hangeth on a tree." The pas- 
sage in Moses to which St. Paul refers is Deut. xxi. 
22, 23 : " If a man have committed a sin worthy 
of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou 
hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain 
all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any 
wise bury him that day ; (for he that is hanged is 
accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled." 
This infamy was only inflicted upon great offend- 
ers, and was designed to show the light in which 
the person, thus exposed, was viewed by God — 
he was a curse or execration. On this the re- 
marks of Grotius are most forcible and con- 
clusive: — " Socinus says, that to be an execra- 
tion means to be under the punishment of 
execration, which is true ; for narapa every- 
where denotes punishment proceeding from the 
sanction of law: 2 Peter ii. 14; Matt. xxv. 41. 
Socinus also admits that the cross of Christ was 
this curse : his cross, therefore, had the nature 
of punishment, which is what we maintain. 
Perhaps Socinus allows that the cross of Christ 
was a punishment because Pilate, as a judge, 
inflicted it; but this does not come up to the 
intention of the apostle ; for, in order to prove 
that Chris- 1 - was made obnoxious to punishment, 
he cites Moses, who expressly asserts that who- 
ever hangs on a tree, according to the Divine 
law, is 'accursed of God;' consequently, in the 
words of the apostle, who cites this place of 
Moses, and refers it to Christ, we must supply 
the same circumstance, ' accursed of God,'' as if 
he had said Christ was made accursed of God, or 
obnoxious to the highest and most ignominious 
punishment ' for us, that the blessing of Abra- 
ham might come on the Gentiles,' etc. For 
when the apostles speak of the sufferings of 



[PART II. 

Christ in reference to our good, they do not re- 
gard the acts of men in them, but the act of 
God." (Be Satisfactions.) 

4. We are carried still farther into the real 
nature and design of the death of Christ, by 
those passages of Holy Scripture which connect 
with it propitiation, atonement, reconciliation, and 
the making peace between God and man ; and the 
more attentively these are considered, the more 
unfounded will the Socinian notion appear, which 
represents the death of Christ as indirectly only 
a benefit to us, and as saving us from our sins 
and their punishment only as it is a motive to 
repentance and virtue. 

To propitiate is to appease, to atone, to turn 
away the wrath of an offended person. In the 
case before us, the wrath turned away is the 
wrath of God ; the person making the propitia- 
tion is Christ ; the propitiating offering or sacri- 
fice is his blood. All this is expressed in most 
explicit terms in the following passages : 1 John 
ii. 2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins." 1 
John iv. 10, "Herein is love, not that we loved 
God ; but that he loved us, and sent his Son to 
be the propitiation for our sins." Rom. iii. 25, 
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood." The word used in 
the two former passages is llac/ide ; in the last 
ilacTTipLov. Both are from the verb lldcKu, so 
often used by Greek writers to express the action 
of a person who, in some appointed way, turned 
away the wrath of a deity ; and, therefore, can- 
not bear the sense which Socinus would put 
upon it — the destruction of sin. This is not 
supported by a single example : with all Greek 
authorities, whether poets, historians, or others, 
the word means to propitiate, and is, for the most 
part, constructed with an accusative case, de- 
signating the person whose displeasure is averted. 
(Grotius, De Satisfactions) As this could not be 
denied, Crellius comes to the aid of Socinus, and 
contends that the sense of this word was not to 
be taken from its common use in the Greek tongue ; 
but from the Hellenistic use of it, namely, its 
use in the Greek of the New Testament, the 
LXX., and the Apocrypha. But this will not 
serve him; for, both by the LXX. and in the 
Apocrypha it is used in the same sense as in the 
Greek classic writers. Ezekiel xliv. 27, "He 
shall offer his sin offering, (l?,ao/tibv,) saith the 
Lord God." Ezekiel xlv. 19, "And the priest shall 
take of the blood of the sin offering, egthaapov" 
Num. v. 8, "The ram of the atonement," icpibc 
tov l?„a<7/j.ov ; to which may be added, out of the 
Apocrypha, 2 Maccabees iii. 33, "Now as the 
high priest was making an atonement," l?MG[ibv. 
The propitiatory sense of the word Uaa/ibc being 
thus fixed, the modern Socinians have conceded, 



CH. XX.] 

in their note on 1 John ii. 2, in their Improved 
Version, that it means "the pacifying of an 
offended party ;" hat they subjoin that Christ is 
a propitiation, because "by his gospel he brings 
sinners to repentance, and thus averts the Divine 
displeasure." The concession is important ; and 
the comment cannot weaken it, because of its 
absurdity ; for, in that interpretation of propi- 
tiation, Moses, or any of the apostles, or any 
minister of the gospel now who succeeds in 
bringing sinners to repentance, is as truly a pro- 
pitiation for sin as Christ himself. On Rom. iii. 
25, however, the authors of the Improved Ver- 
sion continue to follow their master Socinus, and 
translate the passage, "whom God hath set forth 
a propitiation, through faith in his blood," 
"whom God hath set forth as a mercy-seat, in 
his own blood;" and lay great stress upon this 
rendering, as removing "tha,t countenance to 
the doctrine of atonement by vicarious suffer- 
ings" which the common translation affords. 
The word IXaarrjpiov is used in the Septuagint 
version, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to 
express the mercy-seat or covering of the ark. 
But so little is to be gained by taking it in this 
sense in this passage, that this rendering is 
adopted by several orthodox commentators as 
expressing, by a figure, or rather by supplying 
a type to the antitype, in a very emphatic man- 
ner, the doctrine of our Lord's atonement. The 
mercy-seat was so called because, under the 
Old Testament, it was the place where the high 
priest, on the feast of expiation, sprinkled the 
blood of the sin offerings, in order to make an 
atonement for himself and the whole congrega- 
tion ; and since God accepted the offering which 
was then made, it is, for this reason, accounted 
the medium through which God showed himself 
propitious to the people. With reference to this, 
Jesus Christ may be called a mercy-seat, as being 
the person in or through whom God shows him- 
self propitious to mankind. And as, under the 
law, God was propitious to those who came to 
him by appearing before his mercy-seat with the 
blood of their sin offerings, so, under the gospel 
dispensation, he is propitious to those who come 
unto him by Jesus Christ, through faith in that 
blood which is elsewhere called " the blood of 
sprinkling" which he shed for the remission of 
sins. Some able critics have, however, argued, 
from the force of the context, that the word 
ought to be taken actively, and not merely de- 
e.Uratively ; not as "a propitiatory ," but as a 
"propitiation" which, says Grotius, "is shown 
by the mention which is afterward made of blood, 
to which the power of propitiation is ascribed." 
Others supply ^vfia, or lepelov, and render it ex- 
piatory sacrifice. ( Vide Eisner Obs. Schleuxner 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



423 



sub voce.) But whichever of these renderings 
be adopted, the same doctrine is held forth to us. 
The covering of the ark was rendered a propi- 
tiatory only by the blood of the victims sprinkled 
before and upon it ; and when the apostle says, 
that God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a pro- 
pitiatory, he immediately adds, having the cere- 
monies of the temple in his view, " through faith 
in his blood" The text, therefore, contains no 
exhibition of any means of obtaining mercy but 
through the blood of sacrifice, according to the 
rule laid down in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
"without shedding of blood is no remission;" 
and is in strict accordance with Ephesians i. 
7, "We have redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of sins." It is only by his blood that 
Christ himself reconciles us to God. 

Unable, then, as they who deny the vicarious 
nature of the sufferings of Christ are to evade 
the testimony of the above passages which speak 
of our Lord as a propitiation, what is their next 
resource? They deny the existence of wrath 
in God, in the hope of proving that propitiation, 
in a proper sense, cannot be the doctrine of 
Scripture, whatever may be the force of the 
mere terms which the sacred writers employ. 
In order to give plausibility to their statement, 
they pervert and caricature the opinion of the 
orthodox, and argue as though it formed a 
part of the doctrine of Christ's propitiation and 
oblation for sin, that God is naturally an im- 
placable and vengeful being, only made placable 
and disposed to show mercy by satisfaction 
being made to his displeasure through our Lord's 
sufferings and death. This is as contrary to 
Scripture as it is to the opinions of all sober 
persons who hold the doctrine of Christ's atone- 
ment. God is love ; but it is not necessary, in 
order to support this truth, to assume that he 
is nothing else. He has, as we have seen, other 
attributes, which harmonize with this and with 
each other, though assuredly that harmony can- 
not be exhibited by any who deny the propitia- 
tion for sin made by the death of Christ. Their 
system, therefore, obliges them to deny the ex- 
istence of some of the attributes of God, or to 
explain them away. 

It is sufficient to show that there is not only 
no implacability in God, but a most tender and 
placable affection toward the sinning human 
race itself, that the Son of God, by whom the 
propitiation was made, was the free gift of the 
Father to us. This is tho most eminent proof 
of his love, that for our Bakes, and that mercy 
might be extended to us, "ho spared not 
his own Son, but delivered him lip for us 
all." Thus he is the fountain and first moving 
cause of that scheme of recovery and salvation 



424 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



which the incarnation and death of our Lord 
brought into full and efficient operation. The 
question, indeed, is not whether God is love, 
or whether he is of a placable nature : in that 
we are agreed ; but it is, whether God is holy 
and just ; whether we, his creatures, are under 
law or not ; whether this law has any penalty, 
and whether God, in his rectoral character, is 
bound to execute and uphold that law. These 
are points which have already been established ; 
and as the justice of God is punitive, (for if it 
is not punitive, his laws are a dead letter,) then 
is there wrath in God ; then is God angry with 
the wicked ; then is man, as a sinner, obnoxious 
to this anger; and so a propitiation becomes 
necessary to turn it away from him. Nor are 
these terms unscriptural : they are used in the 
New Testament as emphatically as in the Old, 
though, in a special sense, a revelation of the 
mercy of God to man. John the Baptist de- 
clares that if any man believeth not on the Son 
of God, "the wrath of God abideth on him." 
St. Paul declares that "the wrath of God is re- 
vealed from heaven against all ungodliness and 
unrighteousness of men." The day of judgment 
is, with reference to the ungodly, said to be 
" the day of wrath :" God is called " a consuming 
fire;" and as such is the object of "reverence 
and godly fear." Nor is this his displeasure 
light, and the consequences of it a trifling and 
temporary inconvenience. When we only re- 
gard the consequences which have followed sin 
in society, from the earliest ages, and in every 
part of the world, and add to these the many direct 
and fearful inflictions of punishment which have 
proceeded from the "Judge of all the earth," we 
may well say, in the language of Scripture, " My 
flesh trembleth for fear of thee ; and I am afraid 
of thy judgments." But when we look at the 
future state of the wicked, as it is represented in 
Scripture, though expressed generally, and sur- 
rounded as it is with the mystery of a world, and 
a condition of being, unknown to us in the pre- 
sent state, all evils which history has crowded into 
the lot of man appear insignificant in compari- 
son of banishment from God — separation from 
the good — public condemnation — torment of 
spirit — "weeping, wailing, and gnashing of 
teeth " — " everlasting destruction " — " everlast- 
ing fire." Let men talk ever so much and elo- 
quently of the pure benevolence of God, they 
cannot abolish the facts recorded in the history 
of human suffering in this world as the effect of 
transgression ; nor can they discharge these fear- 
ful communications from the pages of the book 
of God. They cannot be criticised away ; and 
if it is " Jesus which delivered us from the wrath 
to come," that is, from those effects of the wrath 



[part II. 

of God which are to come, then, but for him, 
we should have been liable to them. That prin- 
ciple in God, from which such effects follow, the 
Scriptures call wrath; and they who deny the 
existence of wrath in God, deny, therefore, the 
Scriptures. 

It by no means follows, however, that those 
who thus bow to inspired authority must in- 
terpret wrath to be a passion in God ; or that, 
though we conclude the awful attribute of his 
justice to require satisfaction, in order to the 
forgiveness of the guilty, we afford reason to 
any to charge us with attributing vengeful affec- 
tions to the Divine Being. " Our adversaries," 
says Bishop Stillingfleet, "first make opinions 
for us, and then show that they are unreason- 
able. They first suppose that anger in God is 
to be considered as a passion, and that passion 
a desire of revenge, and then tell us that if 
we do not prove that this desire of revenge can 
be satisfied by the sufferings of Christ, then 
we can never prove the doctrine of satisfaction 
to be true ; whereas we do not mean, by God's 
anger, any such passion, but the just declara- 
tion of God's will to punish, upon our provoca- 
tion of him by our sins : we do not make the 
design of the satisfaction to be that God may 
please himself in the revenging the sins of the 
guilty upon the most innocent person, because 
we make the design of punishment not to be the 
satisfaction of anger as a desire of revenge, 
but to be the vindication of the honor and rights 
of the offended person by such a way as he 
himself shall judge satisfactory to the ends 
of his government." — Discourse on the Sufferings 
of Christ. 

This is a sufficient answer ; and we now pro- 
ceed with those passages of Scripture, the 
phraseology of which still further establishes the 
doctrine of Christ's atonement. To those in 
which Christ is called a propitiation, we add 
those which speak of reconciliation and the 
establishment of peace between God and man 
as the design and direct effect of his death. 
So Col. i. 19-22: "For it pleased the Father 
that in him should all fulness dwell ; and having 
made peace through the blood of his cross, by 
him to reconcile all things unto himself ; by him, 
I say, whether they be things in earth, or things 
in heaven. And you, that were sometime alien- 
ated and enemies in your mind by wicked 
works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body 
of his flesh through death." Romans v. 10, 
11 : " For if, when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, much 
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his 
life. And not only so, but we also joy in God, 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



425 



have now received the atonement.'''' 2 Cor. v. 
18, 19 : "And all things are of God, who hath 
reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and 
hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." 
The verbs translated to reconcile are naraTikdaaa 
and uTroKaraXXdaao), which signify a change 
from one state to another ; but, in these pas- 
sages, the connection determines the nature of 
the change to be a change from enmity to friend- 
ship. In Rom. v. 11, the noun KaralXay?) is 
rendered, in our translation, atonement; but it 
is contended that it ought to have been rendered 
reconciliation, unless we admit the primitive 
meaning of the English word atonement, which 
is being at one, to be affixed to it. It was not 
in this sense certainly that the word atonement 
was used by the translators, and it is now fixed 
in its meaning, and, in common language, sig- 
nifies propitiation in the proper and sacrificial 
sense. It is not, however, at all necessary to 
stand upon the rendering of naraTJiayr) in this 
passage by the term atonement. We lose no- 
thing, as we shall see, and the Socinians gain 
nothing by rendering it reconciliation, which, 
indeed, appears more agreeable to the context. 
The word atonement would have been a proper 
substitute for "propitiation?'' in those passages 
of the New Testament in which it occurs, as 
being more obvious in its meaning to the com- 
mon reader ; and because the original word 
answers to the Hebrew "iSd, which is used for 
the legal atonements; "but as the reconciliation 
which we have received through Christ was the 
effect of atonement made for us by his death, 
words which denote the former simply, as 
KaraXayri, and words from the same root, may, 
when applied to the sacrifice of Christ, be not 
unfitly expressed by the latter, as containing in 
them its full import." (Magee's Discourses.) 
We may observe, also, that if, as it is contended, 
we must render Romans v. 11, "By whom we 
have received the reconciliation," the preceding 
verse must not be overlooked, which declares 
" when we were enemies we were reconciled to 
God, by the death of his Son;" which death we 
have just seen is in other passages called a 
"propitiation" or "atonement;" and so the 
apostle conveys no other idea by the term recon- 
ciliation, than reconciliation through an atone- 
ment. 

The expressions "reconciliation," and "making 
peace," necessarily suppose a previous state of 
hostility between God and man, which is recip- 
rocal. This is sometimes called enmity — a 
term, as it respects God, rather unfortunate, 
since enmity is almost fixed in our language to 
signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. Of 
this, the oppugners of the doctrine of the atone- 



ment have availed themselves to argue, that as 
there can be no such affection in the Divine 
nature, therefore, reconciliation in Scripture 
does not mean the reconciliation of God to man, 
but of man to God, whose enmity the example 
and teaching of Christ, they tell us, are very 
effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a sad and 
humbling truth, and one which the Socinians 
in their discussions on the natural innocence of 
man are not willing to admit, that by the infec- 
tion of sin " the carnal mind is enmity against 
God," that human nature is malignantly hostile 
to God, and to the control of his law ; but this is 
far from expressing the whole of that relation 
of man in which in Scripture he is said to be 
at enmity with God, and so to need a reconcilia- 
tion — the making of peace between God and 
him. That relation is a legal one, as that of a 
sovereign in his judicial capacity, and a criminal 
who has violated his laws and risen up against 
his authority, and who is, therefore, treated as 
an enemy. The word hxOpbc is used in this pas- 
sive sense, both in the Greek writers and in 
the New Testament. So, in Romans xi. 28, the 
Jews rejected and punished for refusing the 
gospel are said by the apostle, "as concerning 
the gospel," to be "enemies for your sakes:" 
treated and accounted such; "but, as touching 
the election, they are beloved for the fathers' 
sakes." In the same epistle, chap. v. 10, the 
term is used precisely in the same sense, and 
that with reference to the "reconciliation" by 
Christ: "for if when we were enemies we were 
reconciled to God by the death of his Son" — 
that is, when we were objects of the Divine 
judicial displeasure, accounted as enemies, and 
liable to be capitally treated as such. Enmity, 
in the sense of malignity and the sentiment of 
hatred, is added to this relation in the case of 
man ; but it is no part of the relation itself: it is 
rather a cause of it, as it is one of the actings 
of a corrupt nature which render man obnoxious 
to the displeasure and the penalty of the law 
of God, and place him in the condition of an 
enemy. It is this judicial variance and opposi- 
tion between God and man which is referred 
to in the term "reconciliation," and in the 
phrase " making peace," in the New Testa- 
ment ; and the hostility is, therefore, in its own 
nature mutual. 

But that there is no truth in the notion just 
refuted, namely, that reconciliation means no 
more than our laying aside our enmity to Cod, 
may also bo shown from several express pas- 
sages. The first is tho passage we have above 
cited, Romans v. 11 : " For if when we were 
enemies wo wero reconciled to God." Here the 
act of reconciling is ascribed to God, and not to 



426 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



us ; but if this reconciliation consisted in the 
laying aside our own enmity, the act would be 
ours alone; and, further, that it could not be 
the laying aside of our enmity, is clear from 
the text, which speaks of reconciliation while 
we were yet enemies. " The reconciliation 
spoken of here, is not, as Socinus and his fol- 
lowers have said, our conversion. For that the 
apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us 
previous to our conversion, appears evident 
from the opposite members of the two sentences. 
That of the former runs thus : ' much more 
being justified, we shall be saved from wrath 
through him;' and that of the latter, 'much 
more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his 
life.' The apostle argues from the greater to 
the less. If God were so benign to us before 
our conversion, what may we not expect from 
him now we are converted ? To reconcile here 
cannot mean to convert; for the apostle evi- 
dently speaks of something greatly remarkable 
in the act of Christ; but to convert sinners is 
nothing remarkable, since none but sinners can 
be ever converted ; whereas it was a rare and 
singular thing for Christ to die for sinners, 
and to reconcile sinners to God by his death, 
when there have been but very few good men 
who have died for their friends. In the next 
place, conversion is referred more properly to 
his glorious life than to his shameful death ; 
but this reconciliation is attributed to his death, 
as contradistinguished from his glorious life, 
as is evident from the antithesis contained in 
the two verses. Besides, it is from the latter 
benefit that we learn the nature of the former. 
The latter, which belongs only to the converted, 
consists of the peace of God, and salvation 
from wrath — verses 9, 10. This the apostle 
afterward calls, receiving the reconciliation, and 
what is it to receive the reconciliation, but to 
receive the remission of sins? Acts x. 43. To 
receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely 
unknown. If, then, to receive the reconcilia- 
tion is to receive the remission of sins, and in 
effect to be delivered from wrath or punish- 
ment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding 
signification." — Vide Grotius, De Satisfactione. 

2 Cor. v. 19, "God was in Christ, reconciling 
the world unto himself, not imputing their tres- 
passes unto them." Here, the manner of this re- 
conciliation is expressly said to be not our laying 
aside our enmity, but the non-imputation of our 
trespasses to us by God ; in other words, the 
pardoning our offences and restoring us to favor. 
The promise on God's part to do this is express- 
ive of his previous reconciliation to the world 
by the death of Christ; for our actual reconcili- 
ation is distinguished from this by what follows, 



[part II. 



and hath "committed unto us the ministry of re- 
conciliation," by virtue of which all men were, 
by the apostles, entreated and besought to be re- 
conciled to God. The reason, too, of this recon- 
ciliation of God to the world, by virtue of which 
he promises not to impute sin, is grounded by 
the apostle, in the last verse of the chapter, not 
upon the laying aside of enmity by men, but upon 
the sacrifice of Christ : " For he hath made him 
to be sin (a sin offering) for us, who knew no 
sin, that we might be made the righteousness of 
God in him." 

Ephesians ii. 16, "And that he might reconcile 
both unto God in one body by the cross, having 
slain the enmity thereby." Here the act of re- 
conciling is attributed to Christ. Man is not 
spoken of as reconciling himself to God, but 
Christ is said to reconcile Jews and Gentiles to- 
gether, and both to God, "by his cross." Thus, 
says the apostle, " he is our peace;" but in what 
manner is the peace effected ? Not, in the first 
instance, by subduing the enmity of man's heart, 
but by removing the enmity of "the law." 
"Having abolished in, or by, his flesh, the enmity, 
even the law of commandments." The ceremo- 
nial law only is here probably meant ; for by its 
abolition through its fulfilment in Christ the 
enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken 
away ; but still it was not only necessary to re- 
concile Jew and Gentile together, but to "recon- 
cile both unto God." This he did by the same 
act ; abolishing the ceremonial law by becoming 
the antitype of all its sacrifices ; and thus, by 
the sacrifice of himself, effecting the reconcilia- 
tion of all to God, "slaying the enmity by his 
cross," taking away whatever hindered the re- 
conciliation of the guilty to God, which, as we 
have seen, was not enmity and hatred to God in 
the human mind only, but that judicial hostility 
and variance which separated God and man as 
Judge and criminal. The feeble criticism of So- 
cinus on this passage, in which he has been fol- 
lowed by his adherents to this day, is thus an- 
swered by Grotius : "In this passage, the dative 
Geo), to God, can only be governed by the verb 
dnoKaraXka^ri, that he might reconcile ; for the 
interpretation of Socinus, which makes ' to God' 
stand by itself, or that to reconcile to God is to 
reconcile them among themselves, that they 
might serve God, is distorted and without ex- 
ample. Nor is the argument valid which is drawn 
from thence, that in this place St. Paul properly 
treats of the peace made between Jews and Gen- 
tiles ; for neither does it follow, from this argu- 
ment, that it was beside his purpose to mention 
the peace made for each with God. For the two 
opposites which are joined, are so joined among 
themselves, that they should be primarily and 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



427 



chiefly joined by that bond; for they are not 
united among themselves, except by and for that 
bond. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, are made 
friends among themselves by friendship with 
God." [Vide Grotius, De Satisfactione.) 

Here also a critical remark will be appropriate. 
The above passages will show how falsely it has 
been asserted that God is nowhere in Scripture 
said to be reconciled to us, and that they only 
declare that we are reconciled to God ; but the 
fact is, that the very phrase of our being recon- 
ciled to God imports the turning away his wrath 
from us. Whitby observes, on the words naral- 
Ti&tteiv and KaraXkayri, " that they naturally im- 
port the reconciliation of one that is angry or 
displeased with us, both in profane and Jewish 
writers." (See also Hammond, Rosenmuller, and 
Schleusner.) When the Philistines suspected 
that David would appease the anger of Saul, by 
becoming their adversary, they said, " Where- 
with should he reconcile himself unto his master ? 
Should it not be with the heads of these men ?" 
— not, surely, how shall he remove his own an- 
ger against his master ; but how shall he remove 
his master's anger against him : how shall he 
restore himself to his master's favor ? "If thou 
bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest 
that thy brother hath aught against thee," not 
that thou hast aught against thy brother, "first 
be reconciled to thy brother;" that is, appease 
and conciliate him : so that the words, in fact, 
import, " see that thy brother be reconciled to thee," 
since that which goes before is not that he hath 
done thee an injury, but thou him. 1 

Thus, then, for us to be reconciled to God is 
to avail ourselves of the means by which the an- 
ger of God toward us is to be appeased, which 
the New Testament expressly declares to be gen- 
erally " the sin offering" of him "who knew no 
sin," and instrumentally, as to each individual 
personally, " faith in his blood." 

A general objection of the Socinians to this 
doctrine of reconciliation may be easily an- 
swered. When we speak of the necessity of 
Christ's atonement in order to man's forgive- 
ness, we are told that we represent the Deity as 
implacable ; when we rebut that by showing that 
it was his very placability, his boundless and in- 
effable love to men, which sent his Son into the 
world to die for the sins of mankind, they rejoin 
with their leaders, Socinus and Crellius, that then 
" God was reconciled before he sent his Son, and 
that, therefore, Christ did not die to reconcile 

1 The writers of the New Testament, say some, derive 
this mode of expression from the force of the Hobrow 
word HX 1 "! transferred to the Grook word; but Palalret, 
Grotius, and Schleusner, give instances of tho uso of tho 
term, in the same signification, in writers purely Greek. 



God to us." The answer plainly is, that in this 
objection, they either mean that God had, from 
the placability and compassion of his nature, 
determined to be reconciled to offenders upon the 
sending his Son, or that he was actually recon- 
ciled when our Lord was sent. The first is what 
we contend for, and is in no wise inconsistent 
with the submission of our Lord to death, since 
that was in pursuance of the merciful appoint- 
ment and decree of the Father ; and the neces- 
sary medium by which this placability of God 
could honorably and consistently show itself in 
actual reconciliation, or the pardon of sin. That 
God was not actually reconciled to man, that is, 
that he did not forgive our offences, independent 
of the death of Christ, is clear, for then sin 
would have been forgiven before it was com- 
mitted, and remission of sins could not have 
been preached in the name of Christ, nor could 
a ministry of reconciliation have been committed 
to the apostles. The reconciliation of God to 
man is, throughout, a conditional one, and, as in 
all conditional processes of this kind, it has three 
stages. The first is when the party offended is 
disposed to admit of terms of agreement, which, 
in God, is matter of pure grace and favor ; the 
second is when he declares his acceptance of the 
mediation of a third person, and that he is so 
satisfied with what he hath done in order to it, 
that he appoints it to be announced to the of- 
fender, that if the breach continues, the fault 
lies wholly upon himself; the third is when the 
offender accepts of the terms of agreement which 
are offered to him, submits, and is received into 
favor. "Thus," says Bishop Stillingfleet, "upon 
the death and sufferings of Christ, God declares 
that he is so satisfied with what Christ hath done 
and suffered in order to the reconciliation between 
himself and us, that he now publishes remission 
of sins to the world, upon those terms which the 
Mediator hath declared by his own doctrine and 
the apostles he sent to preach it. But because 
remission of sins doth not immediately follow 
upon the death of Christ, without any supposi- 
tion of any act on our part, therefore the state 
of favor doth commence from the performance 
of the conditions which are required of us." 
(Discourse on the Sufferings of Christ. See also 
Grotius, De Satisfactione, cap. vii.) Whoever 
considers these obvious distinctions, will have an 
ample answer to the Socinian objection. 

5. To the texts which speak of reconciliation 
with God as illustrative of the nature of the 
death of Christ for us, we add those which speak 
of "redemption;" either by employing that word 
itself, or others of the same import. Rom. iii. 
24: "Being justified fivoly by his grace, through 
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.'' Gal. iii. 



428 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



13 : " Christ hath, redeemed us from the curse of 
the law, being made a curse for us." Ephesians 
i. 7 : "In whom we have redemption through his 
blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the 
riches of his grace." 1 Peter i. 18, 19 : " Foras- 
much as ye know that ye were not redeemed 
with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from 
your vain conversation received by tradition from 
your fathers ; but with the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and with- 
out spot." 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20: "And ye are not 
your own, for ye are bought with a price." 

By redemption, those who deny the atonement 
made by Christ wish to understand deliverance 
merely, regarding only the effect, and studi- 
ously putting out of sight the cause from which 
it flows. But the very terms used in the above- 
cited passages, "to redeem" and "to be bought 
with a price," will each be found to refute this 
notion of a gratuitous deliverance, whether 
from sin or punishment, or both. Our English 
word to redeem, literally means to buy back; 
and Xvrpow, to redeem, and anolvTpQOLg, redemp- 
tion, are, both in Greek writers and in the New 
Testament, used for the act of setting free a 
captive, by paying Ivrpov, a ransom or redemp- 
tion price. But, as Grotius [De Satisfactione, 
cap. viii.) has fully shown, by reference to the 
use of the words both in sacred and profane 
writers, redemption signifies not merely the 
liberation of captives, but deliverance from 
exile, death, and every other evil from which we 
may be freed ; and Tivrpov signifies every thing 
which satisfies another, so as to effect this de- 
liverance. The nature of this redemption, or 
purchased deliverance, (for it is not gratuitous 
liberation, as will presently appear,) is, there- 
fore, to be ascertained by the circumstances of 
those who are the subjects of it. The subjects 
in the case before us are sinful men. They are 
under guilt — under "the curse of the law," the 
servants of sin, under the power and dominion 
of the Devil, and "taken captive by him at his 
will" — liable to the death of the body and to 
eternal punishment. To the whole of this case, 
the redemption, the purchased deliverance of 
man, as proclaimed in the gospel, applies itself. 
Hence, in the above-cited and other passages, it 
is said "we have redemption through his blood, 
the forgiveness of sins," in opposition to guilt: 
redemption from "the curse of the law;" de- 
liverance from sin, that we should be "made free 
from sin;" deliverance from the power of 
Satan ; from death, by a resurrection ; and from 
future "wrath," by the gift of eternal life. 
Throughout the whole of this glorious doctrine 
of our redemption from these tremendous evils, 
there is, however, in the New Testament, a 



constant reference to the ?,vrpov, the redemption 
price, which Xvrpov is as constantly declared to 
be the death of Christ, which he endured in our 
stead. Matt. xx. 28: "The Son of man came 
to give his life a ransom (Ivrpov) for many." 
1 Tim. ii. 6: "Who gave himself a ransom 
(dvrlXvTpov) for all." Ephesians i. 7: "In 
whom we have redemption {rrjv uTrolvrpcoatv) 
through his blood." 1 Peter i. 18, 19: "Ye 
were not redeemed ffivrpudnre) with corrupt- 
ible things, as silver and gold, but with the 
precious blood of Christ." That deliverance of 
man from sin, misery, and all other penal evils 
of his transgression which constitutes our re- 
demption by Christ, is not, therefore, a gratuit- 
ous deliverance, granted without a consideration, 
as an act of mere prerogative : the ransom, the 
redemption price, was exacted and paid: one 
thing was given for another — the precious blood 
of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of 
the same import are those passages which re- 
present us as having been ''bought" or "pur- 
chased" by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those 
"who denied the Lord that bought them," (jov 
ayopdaavTa avrovc',) and St. Paul, in the passage 
cited above, says, "ye are bought (T/yopdcdnre) 
with a price;" which price is expressly said 
by St. John, Rev. v. 9, to be the blood of Christ : 
"Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to 
God (rjyopaoae, hast purchased us) by thy blood." 

The means by which it has been attempted to 
evade the force of these most express statements 
of the inspired writers remain to be pointed out 
and refuted. 

The first is to allege that the term redemption 
is sometimes used for simple deliverance, where 
no price or consideration is supposed to be 
given: as when we read in the Old Testament 
of God's redeeming his people from trouble, 
from death, from danger, where no price is men- 
tioned; and when Moses is called, Acts vii. 
35, ?ivrpuTT)g, a redeemer, because he delivered 
his people from the bondage of Egypt. But the 
occasional use of the term in an improper and 
allusive sense cannot be urged against its strict 
and proper signification universally ; and grant- 
ing the occasional use of it in an improper sense, 
it will still remain to be proved that in the 
passages just adduced out of the New Testa- 
ment it is used in this manner. The propriety 
of words is not to be receded from, but for 
weighty reasons. The strict meaning of the 
verb to redeem, is to deliver from captivity, by 
paying a ransom : it is extended to signify de- 
liverance from evils of various kinds by the 
intervention of a valuable consideration: it is,' 
in some cases, used for deliverance by any 
means : the context of the passage in which the 



CH. XX.] 

word occurs, and the circumstances of the case, 
must, therefore, be resorted to in order to de- 
termine the sense in which the word is used. 
Fair criticism requires that we take words in 
their proper sense, unless a sufficient reason can 
be shown, from their connection, to the con- 
trary ; and not that we are first to take them in 
their improper sense until the proper sense is 
forced upon us by argument. This, however, 
is not a case of argument, but of the obvious 
sense of the words used ; for if deliverances, in 
some passages of the Old Testament, from trou- 
ble and danger are spoken of as a redemption, 
without reference to a Ivrpov, or ransom, our 
redemption by Christ is not so spoken of ; but, 
on the contrary, the Xvrpov, or redemption 
price, is repeatedly, expressly, and emphatically 
mentioned, and that price is said to be "the 
blood of Christ." When Greek writers speak 
of uivoiva and Ivrpa, with reference to the 
release of a prisoner, nothing could be more 
absurd than to attempt to resolve these terms 
into a figurative meaning ; because their men- 
tion of the price, and the act of paying it, and 
the circumstances under which it was paid, all 
show that they use the terms in the proper and 
strict sense. For the same reason must they 
be so understood in the New Testament, since 
the price itself, which constitutes the Xvrpov, 
and the person who paid it, and the circum- 
stances under which the transaction took place, 
are all given with as minute an historical pre- 
cision, and a figurative interpretation would in- 
volve us in as great an absurdity in the one case 
as the other. We apply this to the case of 
Moses being called a redeemer, with reference to 
his delivering Israel from Egypt, and remark, 
that the improper use of that term may be 
allowed in the case of Moses, because he is no- 
where said to have redeemed Israel by his death, 
nor by his blood, nor to have purchased the 
Jews with a price, nor to have given himself as a 
ransom ; nor to have interposed any other con- 
sideration, on account of which he was allowed 
to lead his people out of captivity. He is said 
to be a deliverer, a redeemer, and that is all ; 
but the idea of a proper redemption could not, 
in the nature of things, apply to the case, and, 
therefore, it is impossible to interpret the term 
in its proper sense. The Jews were captives, 
and he delivered them: this was sufficient to 
warrant the use of the term redemption in its 
improper sense, a very customary thing in lan- 
guage ; but their captivity was not their fault, 
as ours is : it was not penal, as ours : they were 
delivered from unjust oppression; and God re- 
quired of Moses no redemption price, as a con- 
sideration for interposing to free thorn from 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



429 



bondage. In our case, the captivity was penal : 
there was a right lodged with the justice of 
God to detain us, and to inflict punishment upon 
us ; and a consideration was therefore re- 
quired, in respect of which that right was re- 
laxed. In one instance we are, therefore, 
compelled to interpret the word in an improper 
sense ; in the other strictly ; at least, no argu- 
ment can be drawn from the use of the word 
with reference to Moses to turn it out of its 
proper signification when used of Christ; and 
especially when all the circumstances which 
the word in its proper sense was intended to 
convey, are found in the case to which the re- 
demption of man by Christ is applied. Above 
all, the word Ivrpov is added by Scripture to the 
deliverance of men, effected by Christ ; but it is 
nowhere added to the deliverance effected for 
the Israelites by Moses ; and by this it is, in 
fact, declared, that the mode by which the re- 
demption of each was effected, was not the same : 
the one was by the destruction of the enemies 
of the Israelites ; the other by the death of the 
Deliverer himself. 1 

It has been attempted to evade the literal 
import of the important terms on which we 
have dwelt by urging, that such an interpreta- 
tion would involve the absurdity of paying a 
price to Satan, the power said to hold men cap- 
tive at his will. 

But why should the idea of redemption be 
confined to the purchasing of a captive? The 
reason appears to be, that the objection may be 
invested with some plausibility. The fact, how- 
ever, is, that this is but one species and instance 
of redemption ; for the word, in its proper and 
general sense, means deliverance from evil of 
any kind, a Ivrpov or valuable consideration 
intervening; which valuable consideration may 
not always be literally a price, that is, not 
money, but something done, or something suf- 
fered, by which, in the case of commutation of 



i " Nam Mosis cum Christo instituta collatio, responsione 
vix indiget, cum omnis similitudo certos habeat terininos, 
quos extra protendi nequeat. Comparantur illi, qua libe- 
ratorcs, non ob liberandi modum. Neque magis ex eo 
sequitur, Christum satisfaciendo nos non liberasso, quia 
Moses id non fecerit, quam Christum nos liberasse per 
hominum mortem, quia id fecerit Moses. Quod si ad mo- 
dum quoquo liberandi comparatio pertineret, ea at rectius 
proccdcrct, dicendum essct, Christum nos liberasse mira- 
culis, (ut Moses,) non autom sua morte suoquo sanguine, 
•quod Mosi nee adscribitur, nee adscribi potest. Sed pra* 
cipium est, quod vox "kvrpov, do cujus vi hie agimus. libe- 
ration! per Mosen partw nusquam addltur. Quid quod no 
est Socini quidem sententia modus liberandi idem eal \ 
Nam Moses, Josuo, et alii liberarunt, non aliquid faeiendo 
circa liberandos, (quod Christo SoolnUB tribuit.) sed nino- 
vondo eos qui libertati obstabant, hostefl scilicet." — Uuotius, 
De tfatisfadione, cap. viii. 



430 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



punishment, the lawgiver is satisfied, though no 
benefit occurs to him; because in punishment 
respect is not had to the benefit of the lawgiver, 
but to the common good and order of things. 
So when Zaleucus, the Locrian lawgiver, had 
to pass sentence upon his son, for a crime 
which, by his own laws, condemned the aggres- 
sor to the loss of both his eyes, rather than 
relax his laws by sparing his son, he ordered 
him to be deprived of one of his eyes, and sub- 
mitted to be deprived of one himself. Thus the 
eye of Zaleucus was the Xvrpov of that of his 
son ; and, in a decimation of mutinous soldiers, 
those who are punished are the Tivrpov of the 
whole body. 

But even if the redemption, in Scripture, re- 
lated wholly to captivity, it does not follow that 
the price must be paid to him who detains the 
captive. Our captivity to Satan is not parallel 
to the case of a captive taken in war, and 
in whom, by the laws of war, the captor has 
obtained a right, and demands an equivalent 
for liberation and the renunciation of that 
right. Our captivity to Satan is judicial. Man 
listens to temptation, violates the laws of God, 
joins in a rebellion against his authority, and 
his being left under the power of Satan is a 
part of his punishment. The satisfaction is, 
therefore, to be made to the law under which 
this captivity is made a part of the penalty : not 
to him who detains the captive, and who is but 
a permitted instrument in the execution of the 
law, but to him whose law has been violated. 
He who pays the price of redemption has to 
do with the judicial authority only, and, his 
"kvrpov being accepted, he proceeds to rescue the 
object of his compassion, and becomes the actual 
redeemer. 

The Ivrpov, in the case of man, is the blood 
of Christ; and our redemption is not a com- 
mutation of a pecuniary price for a person, but 
a commutation of the sufferings of one person 
in the stead of another, which sufferings being 
a punishment, in order to satisfaction, are a 
valuable consideration, and, therefore, a price 
for the redemption of man out of the hands of 
Satan, and from all the consequences of that 
captivity. — Vide Stillingfleet's Discourses on 
the Sufferings, etc. 

Under this head, now that we are showing 
that the death of Christ is exhibited in Scrip- 
ture as the price of our redemption, it may also 
be necessary to meet another objection, that 
this doctrine of purchase and commutation is in- 
consistent with that freeness of the grace of 
God in the forgiveness of sins, on which so 
great a stress is laid in the Scriptures. This 
objection has been urged from Socinus to Dr. 



Priestley, and is thus stated by the latter: 
{History of the Corruptions:) "The Scriptures 
uniformly represent God as our universal parent, 
pardoning sinners freely, that is, from his na- 
tural goodness and mercy, whenever they re- 
pent and reform their lives. All the declarations 
of Divine mercy are made, without reserve and 
limitation, to the truly penitent, through all 
the books of Scripture, without the most dis- 
tant hint of any regard being had to the suffer- 
ings or merit of any being whatever." The 
proofs which he gives for this bold, and, indeed, 
impudent position, are chiefly the declaration 
of the apostle, that we are justified freely by 
the grace of God; and he contends that the 
word freely "implies that forgiveness is the free 
gift of God, and proceeds from his essential 
goodness and mercy, without regard to any foreign 
consideration whatever." It is singular, however, 
that the position, as Dr. Priestley has put it in 
the above quotations, refutes itself; for even he 
restricts the exercise of this mercy of God "to 
the truly penitent," "to them who repent and 
reform their lives." Forgiveness, therefore, is 
not, even according to him and his followers, 
free in the sense of unconditional; and at the 
very time he denies that pardon is bestowed by 
God, " without regard to any consideration what- 
ever foreign to his essential goodness and 
mercy," he acknowledges that it is regulated, in 
its exercise, by the consideration of the peni- 
tence or non-penitence of the guilty, who are the 
subjects of it; from which the contradictory con- 
clusion follows, that, in bestowing mercy, God 
has respect to a consideration foreign to his good- 
ness and mercy, even the penitence of man, so 
that there is, in the mode of dispensing mercy, a 
reserve and limitation on the part of God. 

Thus, then, unless they would let in all kinds 
of license, by preaching an unconditional par- 
don, the Socinians are obliged to acknowledge 
that a thing may be done freely, which is, never- 
theless, not done unconditionally. For, as it was 
replied, of old, to Socinus, whom Dr. Priestley 
follows in this objection, if this be not acknow- 
ledged, then the grossest Antinomianism is the 
true doctrine. For if forgiveness of sin can 
only be accounted a free gift by being dependent 
upon no condition and subject to no restrictions, 
it follows, that the repentance and amendment 
of the offender himself are no more to be re- 
garded than the sufferings and merit of any other 
being ; and, consequently, that all sinners, with- 
out reserve or limitation, have an equal claim of 
pardon, whether they repent or not. If, to avoid 
this consequence, it be said that God is free to 
choose the objects to whom he will show mercy, 
and to impose upon them such restrictions and 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



431 



to require of them such qualifications as he 
thinks fit, it may then, with equal reason, be 
asserted, that he is also free to dispense his 
mercy for such reasons and by such methods as 
he, in his wisdom, shall determine to be most 
conducive to his own glory and the good of his 
creatures, and there is no reason whatever to be 
given why a regard to the sufferings or merit of 
another person should more destroy the freeness 
of the gift, than the requisition of certain quali- 
fications in the object himself. ( F«'^e Veysies' 
Bampton Lectures.) Thus the argument urged 
in the objection proves as much against the ob- 
jectors as it does against us, or rather it proves 
nothing against either ; for the showing of mercy 
to the guilty, by any method, was a matter in 
which Almighty God was perfectly free. He 
might have exacted the penalty of his violated 
law upon the sinning individual ; and to forgive 
sin, in any manner, was in him, therefore, an 
act of unspeakable grace and favor. Again, from 
the mode and limitation of dispensing this grace 
and favor, he derives no advantage (for the gra- 
tification of his own benevolence is not a question 
of interest) in the whole transaction : both in the 
mercy dispensed, and in the mode, the benefit of 
the creature is kept in view ; nor could the per- 
sons pardoned themselves furnish any part of the 
consideration on which they are pardoned, or, of 
themselves, perform the conditions required of 
them ; so that, for all these reasons, the pardon 
of man is a free gift, and its mode of being dis- 
pensed is the proof that it is so, and not a proof 
to the contrary. 

But the very passage of St. Paul, to which 
Dr. Priestley refers, when he contends that the 
doctrine of the New Testament is, " that forgive- 
ness is the free gift of God, and proceeds from 
his essential goodness and mercy, without regard 
to any foreign consideration whatever," refutes 
his inference. The passage is, "being justified 
freely by his grace, through the redemption that 
is in Christ Jesus" The same doctrine is taught 
in other passages ; and so far is it from being 
true that no reference is made to any consider- 
ation beyond the mere goodness and mercy of 
God, that consideration is stated in so many ex- 
press words, " through the redemption that is 
in Christ Jesus ;" of which redemption the blood 
of Christ is the price, as taught in the text above 
commented on. But though it was convenient, 
in order to render a bold assertion more plausi- 
ble, to keep this out of sight, a little reflection 
might have shown that the argument built upon 
the word freely, the term used by the apostle, 
proceeds upon an entire mistake. The expres- 
sion has reference to ourselves and to our own 
exertions in the work of justification, not to any 



thing which has been done by another in our be- 
half ; and it is here used to denote the manner 
in which the blessing is bestowed, not the means 
by which it was procured. "Being justified 
freely by his grace" — freely, in the original 
dupeav, in the way of a gift unmerited by us, and 
not in the way of a reward for our worthiness or 
desert, agreeably to the assertion of the apostle 
in another place, " Not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to his 
mercy he saved us." To be justified is to be par- 
doned, and treated as righteous in the sight of 
God, and to be admitted thus into his favor and 
acceptance. But man, in his fallen state, had 
nothing in himself, and could do nothing of 
himself, by which he might merit, or claim as 
his due, so great a benefit. Having, therefore, 
no pretensions to real righteousness, our abso- 
lution from the guilt of sin, and our admission 
to the character and privileges of righteous 
persons, must be imputed not to our merit, but 
to the grace of God : it is an act of mercy which 
we must acknowledge and receive as a free gift, 
and not demand as a just reward. Nor do the 
means by which our justification was effected in 
any respect alter its nature as a gift, or in the 
least diminish its freedom. We are "justified 
freely by his grace, through the redemption that 
is in Christ Jesus." But this redemption was not 
procured by us, nor provided at our expense : it 
was the result of the pure love of God, who, 
compassionating our misery, himself provided 
the means of our deliverance, by sending his 
only-begotten Son into the world, who voluntarily 
submitted to die upon the cross, that he might 
become the propitiation for our sins, and recon- 
cile us to God. Thus is the whole an entire 
act of mercy on the part of God and Christ ; be- 
gun and completed for our benefit, but without 
our intervention ; and, therefore, with respect to 
us, the pardon of sin must still be accounted a 
gift, though it comes to us through the redemp- 
tion that is in Christ Jesus. 

Equally unfounded is the argument built upon 
the passages in which the forgiveness of sins is 
represented under the notion of the free remis- 
sion of a debt ; in which act, it is said, there is 
no consideration of atonement and satisfaction. 
When sin is spoken of as a debt, a metaphor 
is plainly employed, and it would be a novel 
rule to interpret what is plainly literal by what 
is metaphorical. There is, undoubtedly, some- 
thing in the act of forgiving sin which is com- 
mon with the act of remitting a debt by a cre- 
ditor, or there would be no foundation for the 
metaphor; but it can by no means legitimately 
follow that the remission of sins is, in all its 
circumstances, to bo interpreted by all the cir- 



432 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PAET II. 



cumstances which accompany the free remission 
of a debt. "We know, on the contrary, that re- 
mission of sins is not unconditional: repent- 
ance and faith are required in order to it, 
which is acknowledged by the Socinians them- 
selves. But this acknowledgment is fatal to 
the argument they would draw from the in- 
stances in the New Testament, in which Al- 
mighty God is represented as a merciful cre- 
ditor, freely forgiving his insolvent debtors ; for 
if the act of remitting sins be in all respects 
like the act of forgiving debts, then indeed can 
neither repentance, nor faith, nor condition of 
any kind, be insisted upon in order to forgive- 
ness; since, in the instances referred to, the 
debtors were discharged without any expressed 
condition at all. But something, also, previous 
to our repentance and faith, is constantly con- 
nected in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testa- 
ment with the very offer of forgiveness. "It 
behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the 
dead the third day, and that repentance and 
remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations." It was necessary, as we 
have already seen, that the one should take place 
before the other could be announced ; and some 
degree of necessity is allowed in the case, even 
on the Socinian hypothesis, although a very sub- 
ordinate one. But if by an act of prerogative 
alone, unfettered by any considerations of justice 
and right, as is a creditor when he freely for- 
gives a debt, God forgives sins, then there could 
be no necessity of any conceivable kind for 
1 'Christ to suffer;" and the offer of remission 
of sins would, in that case, have been wholly in- 
dependent of his sufferings, which is contrary to 
the text. In perfect accordance with the above 
passage is that in Acts xiii. 38, where it is said, 
"Be it known unto you, therefore, men and 
brethren, that through this man (did) tovtov, 
through the means of this man) is preached unto 
you the forgiveness of sins." Here the same 
means as those before mentioned by St. Luke 
are obviously referred to, "the death and resur- 
rection of Christ." Still more expressly, Matt, 
xxvi. 28, our Lord declares that his blood is 
the "blood of the New Testament, which is shed 
for many for the remission of sins;" where he 
plainly makes his blood the procuring cause of 
that remission, and a necessary libation in order 
to its being attainable. Our redemption is said 
by St. Paul, Ephes. i. 7, to be "through his 
blood," and this redemption he explains to be 
"the forgiveness of sins;" and in writing to the 
Hebrews he lays it down, as that very principle 
of the Old Testament dispensation which made 
it typical of the New, that "without shedding 
of blood is no remission." This remission 



is, nevertheless, for the reasons given above, 
always represented as a free act of the Divine 
mercy ; for the apostles saw no inconsistency in 
giving to it this free and gracious character 
on the one hand, and on the other proclaim- 
ing that that free and adorable mercy was called 
into exercise by the " chastisement of our peace " 
being laid upon Christ; and thus, by uniting 
both, they broadly and infallibly distinguish 
"the act of a lawgiver, who in forgiving sins has 
respect to the authority of the law, and the act 
of a creditor, who in remitting a debt disposes 
of his property at his pleasure." 

But although no criticism can be more falla- 
cious than to interpret the forgiveness of sins, 
which is a plain and literal transaction, by a 
metaphor, or a parable, which may have either 
too few or too many circumstances interwoven 
with it for just illustration, when applied beyond 
or contrary to its intention, the reason of the 
metaphor is at once obvious and beautiful. The 
verb d^lrj[iL is the word commonly used for the 
remission of sins and the remission of debts. It 
signifies to send away, dismiss ; and is accom- 
modated to both these acts. The idea of abso- 
lute right in one party, and of binding obliga- 
tion on the other, hold good equally as to the 
lawgiver and the transgressor, the creditor and 
the debtor. The lawgiver has a right to demand 
obedience, the creditor to demand his property : 
the transgressor of law is under the bond of its 
penalty, the debtor is under the obligation of 
repayment or imprisonment. This is the basis 
of the comparison between debts of money and 
obligations of obedience to a lawgiver ; and the 
same word is equally well applied to express the 
cancelling of each, though, except in the re- 
spects just stated, they are transactions and 
relations very different to each other. Every 
sin involves an obligation to punishment; and 
when sin is dismissed, sent away, or, in other words, 
forgiven, the liability to punishment is removed, 
just as when a debt is dismissed, sent away, or, in 
other words, remitted, the obligation of repay- 
ment, and, in default of that, the obligation of 
imprisonment, or, according to the ancient law, 
of being sold as a slave, is removed with it. So 
far the resemblance goes; but the Scriptures 
themselves, by connecting pardon of sin with a 
previous atonement, prevent it from being carried 
farther. And, indeed, the reason of the case 
sufficiently shows the difference between the re- 
mitting of a debt, which is the act of a private 
man, and the pardon of transgressions against 
a public law, which is the act of a magistrate : 
between an act which affects the private inter- 
ests of one, and an act which, in its bearing 
upon the authority of the public law and the 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



43< 



protection and welfare of society, affects the in- 
terests of many: in a word, between an act 
which is a matter of mere feeling, and in which 
rectoral justice can have no place, and one 
which must be harmonized with rectoral justice; 
for compassion to the guilty can never be the 
leading rule of government. 

6. The nature of the death of Christ is still 
further explained in the New Testament, by the 
manner in which it connects our justification 
with "faith in his blood," the sufferings which 
Christ endured in our stead ; and both our justi- 
fication, and the death of Christ as its merito- 
rious cause, with "the righteousness of God." 
According to the testimony of the whole of the 
evangelic writers, the justification of man is an 
act of the highest grace, a manifestation of the 
superlative and ineffable love of God, and is, at 
the same time, a strictly righteous proceeding. 

These views, scattered throughout the books 
of the New Testament, are summed up in the 
following explicit language of St. Paul, Rom. iii. 
24-26: "Being justified freely by his grace, 
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 
Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation 
through faith in his blood, to declare his right- 
eousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I 
say, at this time his righteousness, that he might 
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth 
in Jesus." The argument of the apostle is ex- 
ceedingly lucid. He treats of man's justification 
before God, of which he mentions two methods. 
The first is by our own obedience to the law 
of God, on the principle of all righteous law, 
that obedience secures exemption from punish- 
ment; or, as he expresses it, chap. x. 5, "For 
Moses describeth the righteousness which is of 
the law, That the man which doeth those things shall 
live hy them.'''' This method of justification he 
proves to be impossible to man in his present 
state of degeneracy, and from the actual trans- 
gressions of Jews and Gentiles, on account of 
which "the whole world" is guilty before God; 
and he therefore lays it down as an incontro- 
vertible maxim, that "by the deeds of the law 
shall no flesh be justified," since "by the law is 
the knowledge of sin;" for which it provides no 
remedy. The other method is justification by 
the grace of God, as a "free gift;" but coming 
to us through the intervention of the death of 
Christ, as our redemption price; and received 
instrumentally by our faith in him. "Being 
justified freely by his grace, through the redemp- 
tion that is in Christ Jesus." He then imme- 
diately adds, "whom God hath set forth," openly 
exhibited and publicly announced, "to be a pro- 
pitiation:" to be the person through whose 
28 



voluntary and vicarious sufferings he is recon- 
ciled to sinful man, and by whom he will justify 
all who "through faith" confide "in" the virtue 
of "his blood," shed for the remission of sins. 
But this public announcement and setting forth 
of Christ as a propitiation, was not only for a 
declaration of the Divine mercy ; but pardon was 
offered to men in this method, to declare the 
"righteousness''' of God, (etc evdec^iv rrjc duiatOGv- 
vnc avrov,) for a demonstration of his righteousness 
or justice, in the remission of past sins; "that 
he might be fust, and the justifier of him which 
believeth in Jesus" — that he might show him- 
self to be strictly and inviolably righteous in the 
administration of his government, even while he 
justifies the offender that believes in Jesus. The 
Socinian version renders the clause, "to declare 
his righteousness for the remission of sins," to 
show his method of justification concerning the 
remission of past sins. Even then the strict 
rectoral justice of the act of justifying sinners, 
through faith in the blood of Christ, is expressed 
by the following clause, "that he might be just ;" 
but the sense of the whole passage requires the 
literal rendering, "to declare his justice, that he 
might be just, and the justifier of him which be- 
lieveth in Jesus." Some have indeed taken the 
word "fust" (diicaioc) in the sense of merciful; 
but this is wholly arbitrary. It occurs, says 
Whitby, above eighty times in the New Testa- 
ment, and not once in that sense. 1 The sense 
just given is confirmed by all the ancient ver- 
sions ; and it is indeed put beyond the reach of 
verbal criticism by the clause, "for the remis- 
sion of sins that are past, through the forbear- 
ance of God." For, whatever view we take of 
this clause, whether we refer it to the sins of men 
before the coming of Christ, or to the past sins 
of one who is at any time justified, the ndpeaic, 
or "passing over" of sins, or, if the common 
rendering please better, " the remission of sins," 
and the "forbearance of God," are acts of ob- 
vious mercy ; and to say that thus the mercy of 
God is manifested, is tautological and identical ; 
whereas past sins not punished through the for- 
bearance of God, without a public atonement, 
might have brought the justice of God into ques- 
tion, but certainly not his mercy. It was the 
justice of the proceeding, therefore, that needed 
a demonstration, and not the mercy of it. This, 
too, is the obvious reason for the repetition so 
emphatically used by the apostle, and which is 
no otherwise to be accounted for : "to declare 

1 See Nares's Remarks on the New Torsion, Mageo on tho 
Atonement, Whitby and Doddridge in toe, Righteousnau 
is Indeed sometimes used for veracity; but only when some 
principle of equity, or BOine obligation arising from en- 
gagement, promise, or threat, is Implied. 



434 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



his righteousness for the remission of sins that 
are past, through the forbearance of God ; to de- 
clare, I say, at this time, his righteousness :" "at 
this time" — now that Christ has actually appeared 
to pay the ransom, and to become the publicly 
announced propitiation for sin ; God cannot now 
appear otherwise than just, although he justifies 
him that believeth in Jesus. Similar language 
is also used by St. John, 1st Epistle, i. 9 : "He 
is faithful and Just to forgive us our sins." So 
that the grand doctrine of Christianity is un- 
equivocally stated by both apostles to be, that, 
according to its constitution, the forgiveness of 
sin is at once an act of mercy and an act of justice, 
or of strictly righteous government. Neither 
the Socinian nor the Arian hypothesis at all har- 
monizes with this principle; on the contrary, 
they both directly contradict it, and cannot, 
therefore, be true. They make the forgiveness 
of sin, indeed, an act of mercy ; but with them 
it is impossible that it should be an act of jus- 
tice, because sin receives not its threatened pun- 
ishment : the penalty of the law is not exacted : 
the offender meets with entire impunity; and 
the Divine administration, so far from being a 
righteous one, has, according to their system, no 
respect to either truth or righteousness ; and, so 
far as offences against the Divine law are con- 
cerned, that law is reduced to a dead letter. 

But in Scripture the doctrine of forgiveness 
of sins, through the propitiatory sacrifice of 
Christ, is not only asserted to be a demonstra- 
tion of the righteousness of God in a case which 
might seem to bring it into question, but the 
particular steps and parts of this "demonstra- 
tion" are, by its light, easy to be traced. For, 

1. The law, the rule of the Divine govern- 
ment, is by this means established in its authority 
and perpetuity. The hypothesis which rejects 
the doctrine of the atonement, repeals the law 
by giving impunity to transgression; for, if 
punishment does not follow offence, or no other 
term of pardon be required than one which the 
culprit has it always in his own power, at once, 
to offer, (which we have seen is the case with 
the repentance stated by Socinians as the only 
condition of forgiveness,) then is the law, as to 
its authority, virtually repealed, and the Divine 
government over rebellious creatures annihilated. 
The Christian doctrine of atonement, on the 
contrary, is, that sin cannot go unpunished in 
the Divine administration; and, therefore, the 
authority of the law is established by this abso- 
lute and everlasting exclusion of impunity from 
transgression. 

2. Whether we take the righteousness or jus- 
tice of God, for that holiness and rectitude of 
his nature from which his punitive justice flows; 



[PART II. 

or for the latter, which consists in exacting the 
penalty righteously and wisely attached to 
offences against the Divine law; or for both 
united, as the stream and the fountain, it is 
demonstrated by the refusal of impunity to sin 
that God is this holy and righteous Being, this 
strict and exact Governor. On any other theory 
there is no manifestation of God's hatred of sin, 
answering at all to that intense holiness of his 
nature, which must lead him to abhor it ; and 
no proof of his rectoral justice as Governor of 
the world. Mercy is, according to them all, ad- 
ministered on a mere principle of feeling, with- 
out any regard to holiness or justice whatever. 

3. The doctrine which connects the pardon of 
the guilty with the meritorious death of Christ, 
illustrates the attribute of Divine justice, by the 
very act of connecting and blending it with the 
attribute of love, and the exercise of an effect- 
ual compassion. At the time that it guards 
with so much care the doctrine of non-impunity 
to sin, it offers impunity to the sinner ; but then 
the medium through which this offer is made, 
serves to heighten the impression of God's hatred 
to sin, and the inflexible character of his justice. 
The person appointed to suffer the punishment 
of sin and the penalty of the law for us, was 
not a mere human being, not a creature of any 
kind, however exalted, but the Son of God ; and 
in him Divinity and humanity were united in one 
person, so that he was "God manifest in the 
flesh," assuming our nature in order that he 
might offer it in death a sacrifice to God. If 
this was necessary, and we have already proved 
it to have been so in the strictest sense, then is 
sin declared, by the strongest demonstration we 
can conceive, to be an evil of immeasurable ex- 
tent ; and the justice of God is, by a demonstra- 
tion of equal force, declared to be inflexible and 
inviolable. God "■spared not his own Son." 

Here, indeed, it has been objected by Socinus 
and his followers, that the dignity of a person 
adds nothing to the estimation of his sufferings. 
The common opinion of mankind in all ages is, 
however, a sufficient refutation of this objection, 
for in proportion to the excellence of the crea- 
tures immolated in sacrifice have the value and 
efficacy of oblations been estimated by all peo- 
ple ; which notion, when perverted, made them 
resort in some instances to human sacrifices, in 
cases of great extremity; and surely, if the 
principle of substitution existed in the penal 
law of any human government, it would be uni- 
versally felt to make a great difference in the 
character of the law whether an honorable or a 
mean substitute were exacted in place of the 
guilty ; and that it would have greatly changed 
the character of the act of Zaleucus, the Locrian 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



435 



lawgiver, before mentioned, and placed the esti- 
mation in which he held his own laws, and the 
degree of strictness with which he was deter- 
mined to uphold them, in a very different light, 
if, instead of parting with one of his own eyes, 
in place of the remaining eye of his son, he had 
ordered the eye of some base slave or of a male- 
factor to be plucked out. But without entering 
into this, the notion will be explicitly refuted if 
o we turn to the testimony of holy writ itself, in 
which the dignity and Divinity of our Lord are 
so often emphatically referred to as stamping 
that value upon his sacrifice, as giving that con- 
sideration to his voluntary sufferings on our ac- 
count, which we usually express by the term of 
" his merits:" in Acts xx. 28, as God, he is said 
to have "purchased the Church with his own 
blood : in Colos. i. 14, 15, we are said to have 
"redemption through his blood, who is the 
image op the invisible God :" in 1 Cor. ii. 8, 
" the Lord op glory" is said to have been " cru- 
cified:" St. Peter emphatically calls the blood 
of Christ "precious blood ;" and St. Paul dwells 
particularly upon this peculiarity when he con- 
trasts the sacrifice of Christ with those of the 
law, and when he ascribes that purifying efficacy, 
which he denies to the blood of bulls and of 
goats, to the blood of Christ: "How much more 
shall the blood of Christ, who through the 
eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to 
God, purge your conscience from dead works to 
serve the living God." By the argument of So- 
cinus, there could be no difference between the 
blood of animals, shed under the law, as to 
value and efficacy, and the blood of Christ ; 
which is directly in the teeth of the declaration 
and argument of the apostle, who also asserts 
that the patterns of things in the heavens were 
purified by animal sacrifices ; " but the heavenly 
things themselves with better sacrifices than 
these," namely, the oblation of Christ. 

To another objection of Socinus, that be- 
cause the Divinity itself suffers not, therefore 
it does not enter into this consideration of pun- 
ishment, Grotius well replies, " This is as much 
as to say that it is an offence of the same kind 
whether you strike a private person or a king, 
a stranger or a father, because blows are directed 
against the body, not against dignity or relation- 
ship." i 

4. In further considering this subject, as 
illustrating the inherent and the rectoral right- 



l " Quod autem Socinus argumontatur, quia divinitas ipsa 
nou patiatur, ideo hano in poena) considerationom non 
venire; perinde est ac si dicas, nihil referre privatum an 
Kegom, item ignotum, an patrem vorbores, quia vorbora in 
corpus dirigantur, non in dignitatum, aut cognationem."— 
De Satis/uctio7ie. 



eousness of God, we are to recollect that, al- 
though by the atonement made for the sins of 
mankind by the death of Christ, all men, ante- 
cedently to their repentance and faith, are, to 
use the language of divines, put into "a 
salvable state," yet none of them are by this act 
of Christ brought from under the authority 
of the moral law. This remains in its full and 
original force ; and as they all continue under the 
original obligation of obedience, so in case of 
those conditions not being complied with, on 
which the actual communication of the benefit 
of redemption has been made to depend, those 
who neglect the great salvation offered to them 
by Christ fall under the full original penalty 
of the law, and are left to its malediction, 
without obstruction to the exercise and infliction 
of Divine justice. Nor, with respect to those 
who perform the conditions required of them, 
and who, by faith in Christ, are justified, and 
thus escape punishment, is there any repeal, or 
even relaxation, of the authority of the law of 
God. The end of justification is not to set men 
free from law, but from punishment; for, con- 
comitant with justification, though distinct from 
it, is the communication of the regenerating 
grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the cor- 
rupt and invalid nature of man is restored to 
the love of holiness and the power to practice 
it, and thus the law of God becomes his con- 
stant rule, and the measure of that holiness to 
which, when this new creation has taken place, 
he vigorously aspires : " For what the law could 
not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, 
God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sin- 
ful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 
that the righteousness of the law might be ful- 
filled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit." Not, indeed, that this obedi- 
ence, which in the present life is in some 
respects imperfect, and in every degree the 
result of the operation of God within us, can, 
after this change, be the rule of our continued 
justification and acceptance : that will rest, 
from first to last, upon the atonement of Christ, 
pleaded in our behalf; so that, if any man 
again sin, "we have an advocate with the Father, 
Jesus Christ the righteous;" but true faith 
leads, by an inseparable connection, both to 
justification and to regeneration ; and they who, 
as the apostle argues, Komans vi. 2, are thus 
"dead to sin," cannot "live any longer there- 
in," but yield willing obedience to the law of 
God. The rule of God, the authority of his law, 
is thus reestablished over his creatures, and the 
strictness of a righteous government is united 
with the exercise of a tender mercy. 

Thus, then, in the doctrine of the atonement 



436 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



of Christ, we see how the righteousness, the 
essential and the rectoral justice, of God, is 
manifested. There is no impunity to sin ; and 
yet the impunity to the sinner, through faith in 
the blood of Christ, does not repeal, does not 
lower, but establish the law of God. These 
views will also enable us to attach an explicit 
meaning to the theological phrase, "the satis- 
faction made to Divine justice," by which the 
nature of Christ's atonement is often expressed. 
This is not a phrase of holy writ; but it is 
not on that account to be disregarded, since, 
like many others, it has been found useful as a 
guard against subtle evasions of the doctrine of 
Scripture, and in giving explicitness, not, in- 
deed, to the language of inspiration, but to the 
sense in which that language is interpreted. 

The two following views of satisfaction may be 
given as those which are most prevalent among 
those divines who hold the doctrine of the atone- 
ment of Christ. 

The first may be thus epitomized : 

The justice of God being concerned to vindi- 
cate his laws, and to inflict upon offenders the 
due reward of their evil deeds, it is agreed that, 
without proper satisfaction, sin could not be 
forgiven. For as sin is opposite to the purity 
and holiness of God, and, consequently, cannot 
but provoke his displeasure ; and as justice is 
essential to the Divine nature, and exists there 
in a supreme degree, it must, inflexibly, require 
the punishment of those who are thus objects 
of his wrath. The satisfaction, therefore, made 
by the death of Christ consisted in his taking 
the place of the guilty; and in his sufferings 
and death being, from the dignity of his nature, 
regarded by the offended Lawgiver as a full 
equivalent and adequate compensation for the 
punishment, by death, of the personally guilty. 

The second opinion does not assume the abso- 
lute necessity of a satisfaction to Divine justice, 
but chiefly insists upon the wisdom and fitness 
of the measure ; arguing, that it became the Al- 
mighty Governor of the universe to Consult the 
honor of his law, and not to suffer it to be 
violated with impunity, lest his subjects should 
call in question his justice. Accordingly, he 
sent his own Son into the world, who, by dying 
for our sins, obtained our release from punish- 
ment ; and, at the same time, made an honorable 
display of the righteousness of God. In a word, 
Christ is supposed, in this opinion, to have made 
satisfaction for our sins, not because his death 
is to be accounted an adequate compensation, or 
a full equivalent for the remission of punishment, 
but because his suffering in our stead main- 
tained the honor of the Divine law, and yet gave 
free scope to the mercy of the Lawgiver. 



[part II. 

Both these opinions have great names for 
their advocates; but the reader will feel that 
there is too much indistinctness in the terms and 
phrases in which they are expressed for either 
of them to be received as a satisfactory enun- 
ciation of this important doctrine. The first 
opinion, though greatly to be preferred, and 
with proper explanations, just, is defective in 
not explaining what is meant by the terms "a 
full equivalent" and "an adequate compensa- 
tion." The second is objectionable, as appear- 
ing to refer the atonement more to wisdom and 
fitness as an expedient, than to wisdom and fitness 
in close and inseparable connection with jus- 
tice ; and is defective in not pointing out what 
that connection between the death of Christ and 
that honoring of the law of God is, which allows 
of the remission of punishment to offenders, of 
which they speak. Each embodies much truth, 
and yet both are capable of originating great and 
fatal errors, unless their terms be definitely and 
scripturally understood. 

To clear this subject, some further observations 
will, then, be necessary. 

The term satisfaction is taken from the Roman 
law, and signifies to content a person aggrieved, 
by doing or by offering something which pro- 
cures liberation from the obligation of debts or 
the penalties of offences : not ipso facto, but by 
the will of the aggrieved party admitting this 
substitution. "Ea dictio (satisfaciendi vocabu- 
lum) in jure et usu communi significat facti 
alicujus aut rei exhibitionem, ex qua non qui- 
dem ipso facto, sed accedente voluntatis actu 
liberatio sequatur ; soletque non tantum in pe- 
cuniaris debitis, sed et in delictis hoc sensu 
usurpari, quod linguse ex Romana depravatse 
appellant, aliquem contentare." (Gbotius, Be 
Satisfactione.) So the Roman lawyer Caius, 
" Satisfacere dicimur ei cujus desiderium imple- 
mus," we are said to satisfy him whose desires 
we fulfil. Ulpian opposes satisfaction to pay- 
ment, " satisfactio pro solutione ;" and, in crim- 
inal cases, Asconius lays it down as a rule, 
"Satisfacere, est tantum facere, quantum satis 
sit irato ad vindictam" — to satisfy is to do as 
much as, to the party offended, may be enough 
in the way of vengeance. ( Vide Chapman's Euse- 
bius.) It is from this use of the term that it has 
been adopted into theology ; and however its 
meaning may have been heightened or lowered 
by the advocates of different systems, it is plain 
that, by the term itself, nothing is indicated but 
the contentment of the injured party by any 
thing which he may choose to accept in the 
place of the enforcement of his obligation upon 
the party indebted or offending. The sense in 
which it must be applied to designate the nature 



CH. XX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



437 



and effect of the death of Christ, in consistency 
with the views we have already taken, is obvious. 
We call the death of Christ a satisfaction offered 
to Divine justice for the transgressions of men, 
with reference to its effect upon the mind of 
the supreme Lawgiver. As a just Governor, 
he is satisfied, contented with the atonement 
offered by the vicarious death of his Son, and 
the conditions on which it is to become avail- 
able to the offenders ; and their punishment, 
those conditions being accomplished, is no longer 
exacted. 

This effect upon the mind of the Lawgiver 
is not, as the Socinians would pervert the doc- 
trine, the satisfaction of an angry, vengeful 
affection, as we have before shown ; but, accord- 
ing to the very phrase employed in all cases, 
and which is sufficient to show that their perver- 
sion of our meaning is wilful, "a satisfaction," 
or "contentment" of his justice, which means, 
and can only rationally mean, the satisfaction 
of the mind of a just or righteous governor, 
disposed from the goodness of his nature to 
show mercy to the guilty, and who can now do 
it consistently with the rectitude of his char- 
acter and the authority of his laws, which it 
is the office of punitive justice to proclaim and 
to uphold. The satisfaction of Divine justice 
by the death of Christ consists, therefore, in 
this, that this wise and gracious provision on 
the part of the Father having been voluntarily 
carried into effect by the Son, the just God has 
determined it to be as consistent with his own 
holy and righteous character, and the ends of 
law and government, to forgive all who have 
true " faith in the blood of Christ," the appointed 
propitiation for sin, as though they had all been 
personally punished for their transgressions. 

The death of Christ, then, is the satisfaction 
accepted ; and this being a satisfaction to justice, 
that is, a consideration which satisfied God, as 
a being essentially righteous, and as having strict 
and inflexible respect to the justice of his go- 
vernment ; pardon through, or for the sake of 
that death, became, in consequence, "a declara- 
tion of the righteousness of God," as the only 
appointed method of remitting the punishment 
of the guilty; and if so, satisfaction respects 
not, in the first instance, according to the second 
opinion we have stated above, the honor of the 
law of God, but its authority, and the upholding 
of that righteous and holy character of the Law- 
giver, and of his administration, of which that 
law is the visible and public expression. Nor is 
this to be regarded as a merely wise and fit ex- 
pedient of government — a point to which even 
Grotius leans too much, as well as many other 
divines who have adopted the second opinion — 



for this may imply that it was one of many other 
possible expedients, though the best; whereas 
we have seen that it is everywhere in Scripture 
represented as necessary to human salvation ; 
and that it is to be concluded that no alternative 
existed but that of exchanging a righteous go- 
vernment for one careless and relaxed, to the 
dishonor of the Divine attributes, and the sanc- 
tioning of moral disorder ; or the upholding of 
such a government by the personal and extreme 
punishment of every offender; or else the ac- 
ceptance of the vicarious death of an infinitely 
dignified and glorious being, through whom par- 
don should be offered, and in whose hands a 
process for the moral restoration of the lapsed 
should be placed. The humiliation, sufferings, 
and death of such a being, did most obviously 
demonstrate the righteous character and admin- 
istration of God ; and if the greatest means we 
can conceive were employed for this end, then we 
may safely conclude that the righteousness of 
God, in the forgiveness of sin, could not have 
been demonstrated by inferior means ; and as 
God cannot cease to be a righteous Governor, 
man, in that case, could have had no hope. 

The advocates of the second opinion not only 
speak of the honor of the Divine law being con- 
cerned in this transaction, but of the mainte- 
nance of the justice of God, in which they come 
substantially to an agreement with those who 
hold the first opinion ; and if so, there appears 
no reason to except to such phrases as a "full 
equivalent," and "an adequate compensation," 
when soberly interpreted. An equivalent is 
something of equal value, or of equal force and 
power, to something else ; but here the value 
spoken of is judicial value, that which is to weigh 
equally in the mind of a wise, benevolent, and 
yet strictly righteous Governor ; and if the death 
of Christ for sinners was determined, in his in- 
fallible judgment, to be as equal a "demonstra- 
tion" of his justice as the personal and extreme 
punishment of offenders themselves, it was, in 
this judicial consideration of the matter, of equal 
weight, and therefore of equal value, as a means 
of righteous government ; for which reason, 
also, it was of equal force, or power, or cogency, 
another leading sense of the term equivalent. 
So, also, as to the term " compensation," which 
signifies the weighing of one thing against an- 
other, the making amends: if this be interpreted 
as the former, judicially, tho death of Christ for 
sinners is an adequate compensation lor their 
personal punishment, in the estimation of Divino 
justice ; because it is, at least, an equally power- 
ful demonstration of the righteousness oi' God, 
who only in consideration of that atonement tor- 
gives the sins of oflending men. 



438 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PAET LT. 



Just, however, and significant as these phrases 
are when thus interpreted, one reason why they 
have been objected to by some orthodox divines 
is, that they have been nsed in support of the 
Antinomian doctrine. On this account they have 
been by some wholly rejected, and a loose and 
dangerous phraseology introduced, when the rea- 
son of the case only required thait they should 
be explained. The Antinomian perversion of 
them may here be briefly refuted, though that 
doctrine will afterward come under our more 
direct consideration. 

In the first place, the Antinomians connect the 
satisfaction of Christ with the doctrine of the 
imputation of his active righteousness to be- 
lievers. TTith them, therefore, the satisfaction 
of Christ means his performing for us that obe- 
dience which we were bound to perform. They 
consider our Lord as a proxy for men ; so that 
his perfect obedience to the law should be es- 
teemed by God as done by them — as theirs in 
legal construction ; and that his perfect righteous- 
ness being imputed to them, renders them legally 
righteous and sinless. The plain answer to this 
is. 1. That we have no such office ascribed in 
Scripture to the active righteousness of Christ, 
which is only spoken of there in connection with 
his atonement, as rendering him a fit victim or sac- 
rifice for sin — he " suffered for sins, the just fov the 
unjust." 2. That this doctrine of the imputation 
of Christ's obedience makes his sufferings super- 
fluous. For if he has done all that the law re- 
quired of us, and if this is legally accounted our 
doing, then are we under no penalty of suffering, 
and his suffering in our stead was more than the 
law and the case required. 3. That this involves 
a jiction opposed to the ends of moral govern- 
ment, and shuts out the obligation of personal 
obedience to the law of God ; so far, therefore, 
is it from being a demonstration of God's right- 
eousness, his rectoral justice, that it transfers 
the obligation of obedience from the subjects of 
the Divine government to Christ, and leaves man 
without law, and God without dominion, which 
is obviously contrary to the Scriptures, and fa- 
vorable to license of every kind. 4. This is not 
satisfaction in any good sense ; it is merely the 
performance of all that the law requires by one 
person substituted for another. 

Again, the terms full satisfaction, and full equi- 
valent, are taken by the Antmomians in the sense 
of the payment of debts by a surety for him who 
has not the means of payment ; as though sins 
were analogous to civil debts. This proceeds 
upon the mistake of confounding the cancelling 
of a debt of judicial obligation with the pay- 
ment of a debt of money. We have already seen 
the difference between the relation of a sinner to 



his offended Judge and Sovereign, and that of a 
pecuniary debtor to a creditor, and have pointed 
out the basis of the metaphor, when it occurs as 
a figurative representation in Scripture. Such 
payment would not be satisfaction in the proper 
sense, which stands opposed to payment, and 
means the acceptance of something in the place 
of what is due, with which the Lawgiver is con- 
tent. Xor can any such sense be forced upon 
the term satisfaction, for we have no such repre- 
sentation in Scripture of the death of Christ, as 
that it is, in principle, like the payment of so 
many talents or pounds by one person, for so 
many talents or pounds owing by another, and 
which thereby cancels all future obligation. His 
atoning act consisted in suffering, " the just for 
the unjust :" neither in doing just so many holy 
acts as we were bound to do, nor in suffering the 
precise quantum of pain which we deserved to 
suffer, neither of which appears in the nature 
of things to be even possible ; but doing and 
suffering that which, by reason of the peculiar 
glory and dignity of the person thus co min g 
under the bond of the law, both as to obedience 
and suffering, was accounted by God to be a 
sufficient ■'•' demonstration of his righteousness/' 
in showing mercy to all who truly believe in him. 
And as this notion of payment in full and kind 
by a surety is contrary to the import of satis- 
faction, so also is it inconsistent with the import 
of the phrase, a full equivalent. He who pays 
a civil debt in full for another, does not render 
an equivalent, but gives precisely what the ori- 
ginal obligation required. So, if the obedience 
of Christ were equal in quantity and degree to 
all the acts of obedience due by men, and is to 
be accounted theirs, there is no equivalent of- 
fered, but the same thing is done, only it is done 
by another ; and if the penal sufferings of Christ 
were in nature, quantity, and intenseness equal 
to the punishment of all sinners, in time and 
eternity, taken together, and are to be accounted 
their sufferings, no proper equivalent is offered 
in the case. The only true sense of the suffer- 
ings of Christ being a full equivalent for the 
remission of the punishment due to the guilty 
is, that they equally availed to the satisfying of 
Divine justice, and vindicating the authority of 
his laws : that they were equivalent, in the esti- 
mation of a just Governor, in the administration 
of his laws, to the punishment of the guilty ; 
equivalent in effect to a legal satisfaction, which 
would consist in the enforcement upon the per- 
sons of the offenders of the penalty of the vio- 
lated commandment. 

Another consequence to which the Antino- 
mian view leads is, that it makes the justi- 
fication of men a matter of right, not of grace. 



CH. XX.] 

We can easily, when the doctrine of satisfac- 
tion is properly stated, answer the infidel and 
Socinian objection, that it destroys the free and 
gracious nature of an act of forgiveness. For, 
not to urge again what has before been advanced, 
that the Father was the fountain of this mercy, 
and "gave" the Son, the satisfaction was quid 
recusabile, or such as God might have refused. 
For if the laws under which God had placed us 
were "holy, just, and good," which is their real 
character, and if the penalties attached to their 
violation were righteous, which must also be con- 
ceded, then it would have been righteous, every 
way consistent with the glory of God, and with 
every perfection of his nature, to have enforced 
the penalty. The satisfaction offered might not 
be unjust in him to accept, and yet he was clearly 
under no obligation to accept it could it have 
been offered independent of himself, much less 
could he be under any obligation to provide it, 
which he did. The offender could have no right 
to claim such a provision, and it depended, there- 
fore, solely on the will of God, and as such was 
an act of the highest grace. 

Again, the forgiveness of sinners, through an 
atonement, is not de jure, that which can be 
claimed as a matter of right. It is made to con- 
sist with law, but is not in any sense by the law. 
However valuable the atonement, yet, independ- 
ent of the favor and grace of the Lawgiver, it 
could not have obtained our pardon. Both must 
concur in order to this, the kindness and com- 
passion of the being offended inducing him to 
accept satisfaction, and such a satisfaction as 
would render it morally fit and honorable in him 
to offer forgiveness. " By grace," therefore, we 
" are saved ;" and nothing that Christ has done 
renders us not deserving of punishment, or can- 
cels our obligations as creatures and subjects, as 
a surety cancels the obligations of a debtor, 
whose debt he pays for him. Forgiveness in 
God can, therefore, be no other than an act of 
high and distinguished mercy. 

We are also to consider, even now that the 
atonement has been accepted, and the promise 
of forgiveness proclaimed, upon the conditions 
of repentance and faith, that we claim forgive- 
ness not on the ground of justice, but on that of 
the faithfulness of God, who has been pleased to 
bind himself by promises; and also that the 
mercy and grace of God are further illustrated 
by his not proceeding to extremities against us 
upon our first refusals of his overturos, of which 
all aro in some degree guilty. Ho exorcises 
toward us, in all cases, "all long-suffering," 
and calls us not hastily to account for our neg- 
lect of the gospel, any more than for the in- 
fractions of his law, both -which ho might do 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



439 



were his government severe and his mercy re- 
luctant. 

But abundantly as the objection may thus be 
answered, it is not to be satisfactorily refuted on 
the Antinomian principle, that Christ paid our 
debt, in the sense of yielding to the law, in kind 
and in quantity, those acts of obedience, or that 
penalty of suffering, or both, which the law re- 
quired. The matter in that case, on the part of 
the Father, loses its character of grace, and is 
reduced to a strictly equitable proceeding; or 
at least the mercy is of no higher a kind than is 
the mercy of a creditor who accepts the full 
amount of his debt from the surety instead of 
the debtor, which is assuredly much below that 
love of the Father, to which allusions so ad- 
miring and so grateful are often made in the New 
Testament. The consequences, also, become 
absurd and wholly contradictory to the Scrip- 
tures; and such a view of the satisfaction of 
Christ is inconsistent with conditions of pardon 
and acceptance ; for if the debt is in this sense 
actually tendered and accepted, on what ground 
can conditions of release stand? It is, there- 
fore, consistent in the Antinomian scheme to 
deny all conditions of pardon and acceptance, 
and to make repentance and faith merely the 
means through which men come to the knowledge 
of their previous and eternal election. By them, 
as fulfilled conditions, their relation to God is not 
changed, so that from guilty and condemned 
criminals they become sons of God. Such they 
were previous to faith, and previous even to 
birth ; and thus the Scripture is contradicted, 
which represents believers before repentance 
and faith to be "the children of wrath, even as 
others." That passage also in Galatians loses 
its meaning, " We have believed in Jesus Christ, 
that we might be justified by the faith of 
Christ." 

With such explanations of the terms of the 
first of the two opinions on the satisfaction of 
Christ, above given, it may be taken as fully 
accordant with the doctrine of the New Testa- 
ment on this important subject. 

Another remark may here be in its proper 
place. It has been sometimes said by theolo- 
gians, sufficiently sound in their general views 
of the doctrine of the atonement, that we know 
not tho vinculum, or bond of connection between 
the sufferings of Christ and the pardon of sin, 
and this, therefore, they placo among the mys- 
teries of religion. To me this appears rather to 
arise from obscure views of the atonement, than 
from the absence of information on this point in 
tho Scriptures themselves. Mysteries of love 
and incomprehensible fa< Is are found, it is true, 
in the incarnation, humiliation, and Bufferings 



440 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



of our Lord; but the vinculum, or connection of 
those sufferings, appears to be matter of express 
revelation, when it is declared that the death 
of Christ was " a demonstration of the righteous- 
ness of God," of his righteous character and his 
just administration, and therefore allowed the 
honorable exercise of mercy, without impeach- 
ment of justice, or any repeal or relaxation of 
his laws. If it be meant, in this allegation of 
mystery, that it is not discoverable how the 
death of Christ is as adequate a display of the 
justice of God as though offenders had been 
personally punished, this also is clearly in oppo- 
sition to what the apostle has said, in the pas- 
sage which has been so often referred to, "Whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through 
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness," 
elg h-detztv Tf/g ditcatoavvTjg avrov, for a demonstra- 
tion or 3JLLS~ipe station of his righteousness; nor 
surely can the particulars before stated in ex- 
planation of this point be well weighed, without 
our perceiving how gloriously the holiness and 
essential rectitude of God, as well as his rectoral 
justice, were illustrated by this proceeding: this 
surely is manifestation, not mystery. 

For, generally speaking, it cannot be a matter 
of difficulty to conceive how the authority of a 
law may be upheld, and the justice of its admi- 
nistration made manifest, even when its penalty 
is exacted in some other way than the punish- 
ment of the party offending. "When the Locrian 
legislator voluntarily suffered the loss of one of 
his eyes, to save that of his son condemned by 
his own statutes to lose both, and did this that 
the law might neither be repealed nor exist with- 
out efficacy, who does not see that the authority 
of his laws was as much, nay more, impressively 
sanctioned than if his son had endured the full 
penalty? The case, it is true, has in it nothing 
parallel to the work of Christ, except in that 
particular which it is here adduced to illustrate ; 
but it shows that it is not in all cases necessary 
for the upholding of a firm government that the 
offender himself should be punished. This is 
the natural mode of maintaining authority, but 
not, in all cases, the only one ; and, in that of 
the redemption of man, we see the wisdom of 
God in its brightest manifestation securing this 
end, and yet opening to man the door of hope. 
The strict justice of the case required that the 
righteous character of the Divine administration 
should be upheld ; but, in fact, by the sufferings 
of our Lord being made the only means of par- 
don, it has received a stamp more legible and 
impressive than the extreme punishment of 
offenders, however awful; while it connects love 
with justice, and presents God to us at once 
exact in righteousness and affectingly gracious 



[part n. 

' and merciful. "The Judge himself bore the 
punishment of transgression, while he published 
an amnesty to the guilty, and thus asserted the 
authority, and importance, and worth of the 
law by that very act which beamed forth love 
unspeakable, and displayed a compassion which 
knew no obstacle but the unwillingness- of the 
criminals to accept it. The eternal Word became 
flesh, and exhibited, in sufferings and in death, 
that combination of holiness and mercy which, 
believed, must excite love, and, if loved, must pro- 
' duce resemblance." (E~rskist: on Revealed Rdi- 
' ffion.) 'Olercy and truth have met together, right- 
eousness and peace have kissed each other." Thus 
: the vinculum, that which connects the death of 
; Christ with our salvation, is simply the security 
[ which it gives to the righteous administration of 
i the Divine government. 

An objection is made by the opponents of the 
' doctrine of atonement to the justice of laying 
\ the punishment of the guilty upon the innocent, 
I which it will be necessary briefly to consider. 
'■ The objection resolves itself into an inquiry how 
far such benevolent interpositions of one person 
i for another, as involve sacrifice and suffering, 
i may go without violating justice ; and when the 
\ subject is followed in this direction, the objec- 
I tion will be found to be of no weight. 

That it has always been held a virtue to en- 
dure inconveniences, to encounter danger, and 
! even to suffer for the sake of others, in certain 
circumstances, cannot be denied, and no one has 
ever thought of controlling such acts by raising 
any questions as to their justice. Parents and 
friends not only endure labor and make sacri- 
! fices for their children and connections, but 



often submit to positive pain in accomplishing 



that to which their affection prompts them. To 
save a fellow-creature perishing by water or fire, 

; generous minds often expose themselves to great 

' personal risk of life, and even sometimes perish 
in the attempt; yet the claims of humanity are 

; considered sufficient to justify such deeds, which 
are never blamed, but always applauded. No 

i man's life, we grant, is at his own disposal; but 

! in all cases where it is agreed that God, the only 
being who has a right to dispose of life, has left 
men at liberty to offer their lives for the benefit 

! of others, no one questions the justice of their 
doing it. Thus, when a patriot army marches 

; to almost certain destruction to defend its coast3 
from foreign invasion and violence, the esta- 

j blished notion that the life of every man is 
placed by God at the disposal of his country, 
justifies the hazard. It is still a clearer instance, 
because matter of revelation, that there are 
cases in which "we ought to lay down our lives 
for the brethren;" that is, for the Church and 



CH. XX.] 

the interests of religion in the world. Christians 
are called to pursue their duty of instructing, 
and reforming, and saving others, though, in 
some cases, the active services into which they 
may be led will shorten life ; and in times of 
persecution it is obligatory upon them not only 
to be ready to suffer, but to die, rather than 
deny Christ. No one questions the justice of 
this, because all see that the Author and Lord 
of the lives of men has given to them the right 
of thus disposing of life ; nor do we ever hear it 
urged that it was unjust in him to require them 
to submit to the pain of racks and fires, and 
other modes of violent death, which they cer- 
tainly did not deserve, and when, as to any crime 
meriting public and ignominious death, they 
were, doubtless, innocent. These cases are not 
adduced as parallel to the death of Christ for 
sinners ; but so far they agree with it, that, in 
the ordinary course of providence, and by ex- 
press appointment of God, men suffer and even 
die for the benefit of others ; and in some cases 
the morally worthy, the comparatively innocent, 
die for the instruction, and, instrumentally, for 
the salvation of the unworthy and vicious. 
There is a similarity in the two cases, also, in 
other particulars, as that the suffering of danger 
or death is in both matter of choice, not of com- 
pulsion or necessity ; and that there is a right in 
the parties to choose suffering and death, though, 
as we shall see, this right in benevolent men is 
of a different kind from that with which Christ 
was invested. 

Some writers of great eminence on the doc- 
trine of atonement have urged, also, in answer 
to the objection before us, the suffering of per- 
sons in consequence of the sins of others, as 
children on account of the crimes of their pa- 
rents, both by the natural constitution of things 
and by the laws of many states ; but the sub- 
ject does not appear to derive any real illustra- 
tion from these examples ; for, as a modern 
writer well observes, " the principles upon which 
the Catholic opinion is defended destroy every 
kind of similarity between these cases and the 
sufferings of Christ. In all such instances of 
the extension of punishment, persons suffer for 
sins of which they are innocent, but without 
their consent, in consequence of a constitution 
under which they are born, and by a disposition 
of events which they probably lament ; and their 
suffering is not supposed to have any effect in 
alleviating the evils incurred by those whose 
punishment they bear." — Hill's Lectures. 

In all the cases mentioned above, as most in 
point in this argument, we grant that there is no 
instance of satisfaction by vicarious punishment : 
no legal substitution of one person for another. 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



441 



With respect to human governments, they could 
not justly adopt this principle in any case. They 
could not oblige an innocent person to suffer for 
the guilty, because that would be unjust to him: 
they could not accept his offer, were he ever so 
anxious to become the substitute of another, for 
that would be unjust to God, since they have no 
authority from him so to take away the life of 
one of his creatures, and the person himself has 
no authority to offer it. With respect to the Di- 
vine government, a parallel case is also impos- 
sible, because no guilty man could be the sub- 
stitute for his fellows, his own life being for- 
feited; and no higher creature could be that 
substitute — of which we are fully assured by 
this, that if it was necessary that Christ, who is 
infinitely above all creatures, should suffer for 
us, in order that God might be just in justifying 
the guilty, then his justice could not have been 
manifested by the interposition of any creature 
whatever in our behalf ; and therefore the legal 
obstacle to our pardon must have remained in 
full force. There can be no full parallel to this 
singular and only case ; but yet, as to the ques- 
tion of justice, which is here the only point 
under consideration, it rests on the same prin- 
ciples as those before mentioned. In the case of 
St. Paul we see a willing sufferer : he chooses to 
suffer and to die " for the elect's sake," and that 
he might publish the gospel to the world. He 
knew that this would be his lot, and he glories in 
the prospect. He gave up cheerfully what might 
have remained to him of life by the constitution 
of nature. Was it, then, unjust in God to accept 
this offering of generous devotedness for the 
good of mankind, when the offering was in obe- 
dience to his own will ? Certainly not. Was it 
an unjust act toward God, that is, did it violate 
the right of God over his life, for St. Paul to 
choose to die for the gospel ? Certainly not ; 
for God had given to him the right of thus dis- 
posing of his life, by making it his duty to die 
for the truth. The same considerations of choice 
and right unite in the sufferings of our Lord, 
though the case itself was one of an infinitely 
higher nature — a circumstance which strengthens 
but does not change the principle. He was a 
willing substitute, and choice was in him abun- 
dantly more free and unbiased than it could be 
in a creature, and for this reason, that he was 
not a creature. His incarnation was voluntary ; 
and, when incarnate, his sufferings were still a 
matter of choice ; nor was he, in the same sense 
as his disciples, under the power of men. "No 
man taketh my lifo from me ; but I lay it down 
of myself." He had the right of doing so in a 
sense that no creature could have. Ho died not 
only becauso the Fathor willed it ; not because 



442 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



the right of living or dying had been conceded 
to him as a moral trust, as in the case of the 
apostles; hut because, having himself the su- 
preme power of life and death, from his bound- 
less benevolence to man, he willed to die ; and 
thus was there, in this substitution, a concur- 
rence of the Lawgiver, and the consent of the 
substitute. To say that any thing is unjust, is 
to say that the rights of some one are invaded ; 
but if, in this case, no right was invaded, than 
which nothing can be more clear, then was there 
in the case nothing of injustice, as assumed in 
the objection. The whole resolves itself, there- 
fore, into a question not of justice, but of the 
wisdom of admitting a substitute to take the 
place of the guilty. In the circumstances, first 
of the willingness of the substitute to submit to 
the penalty, and secondly of his right thus to 
dispose of himself, the justice of the proceeding 
is fully cleared ; and the question of wisdom is 
to be determined by this consideration, whether 
the end of punishment could be as well answered 
by this translation of the penalty to a substitute 
as if the principals themselves had personally 
been held to undergo it. This, when the whole 
evangelical scheme is taken into account, em- 
bracing the means and conditions by which that 
substitution is made available, and the concomi- 
tants by which it is attended, as before ex- 
plained, is also obvious : the law of God is not 
repealed nor relaxed, but established: those who 
continue disobedient fall into aggravated con- 
demnation, and those who avail themselves of 
the mercy of God, thus conceded, are restored to 
the capacity and disposition of obedience, and 
that perfectly and eternally in a future state of 
existence ; so that, as the end of punishment is 
the maintenance of the authority of law and the 
character of the Lawgiver, this end is even more 
abundantly accomplished by this glorious inter- 
position of the compassion and adorable wisdom 
of God our Saviour. 

So unfounded is this objection to the doc- 
trine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ ; to 
which we may add, that the difficulty of recon- 
ciling those sufferings to the Divine justice does 
not, in truth, lie with us, but with the Socinians. 
Different opinions as to the nature and end of 
those sufferings, neither lessen nor heighten them. 
The extreme and emphatic sufferings of our Lord 
constitute a fact which stands unalterably upon 
the record of the inspired history. We who re- 
gard Christ as suffering by virtue of a voluntary 
substitution of himself in our room and stead, 
can account for such agonies, and, by the fore- 
going arguments, can reconcile them to justice ; 
but, as our Lord was perfectly and absolutely 
innocent, as he "did no sin," and was, in this 



[PART II. 

respect, distinguished from all men who ever 
lived, and who have all sinned, by being entirely 
"holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin- 
ners," how will they reconcile it to Divine justice 
that he should be thus as preeminent in suffering 
as he was in virtue, and when, according to them, 
he sustained a personal character only, and not 
a vicarious one ? For this difficulty they have, 
and can have, no rational solution. 

As to the passage in Ezekiel xviii. 20, which 
Socinians sometimes urge against the doctrine 
of Christ's vicarious passion, it is briefly but 
satisfactorily answered by Grotius : " Socinus 
objects from Ezekiel, < The soul that sinneth, it 
shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity 
of the father, neither shall the father bear the 
iniquity of the son.' But in these words God 
does not teach us what he must necessarily do ; 
but what [in a particular case] he had freely 
decreed to do. It no more, therefore, follows 
from hence that it is unjust altogether for a 
son to bear any part of the punishment of his 
father's crime, than that it is unjust for a sinner 
not to die. The place itself evinces that God 
does not here treat of perpetual and immutable 
right ; but of that ordinary course of his provi- 
dence which he was determined hereafter to pur- 
sue with respect to the Jews, that he might cut 
off all occasion of complaint." — De Satisfactione. 



CHAPTER XXI. 

REDEMPTION — SACRIFICES OP THE LAW. 

It has, then, been established, upon the testi- 
mony of various texts, in which the doctrine is 
laid down, not in the language of metaphor and 
allusion, but clearly and expressly, that the 
death of Christ was vicarious and propitiatory ; 
and that by it a satisfaction was offered to the 
Divine justice for the transgressions of men ; in 
consideration of which, pardon and salvation are 
offered to them in the gospel through faith ; and 
I have preferred to adduce these clear and 
cogent proofs of this great principle of our reli- 
gion, in the first place, from those passages in 
the New Testament in which there are no sacri- 
ficial terms, no direct allusions to the atone- 
ments of the law, and other parts of the Levitical 
piacular system, to show that, independent of 
the latter class of texts, the doctrine may be 
established against the Socinians ; and, also, 
that by having first settled the meaning of the 
leading passages, we may more satisfactorily 
determine the sense in which the evangelists and 
apostles use the sacrificial terms of the Old 



CH. XXI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



443 



Testament -with reference to the death of Christ ; 
a subject in which, from its nature, the oppo- 
nents of the atonement find a freedom of remark 
and license of criticism, by which they are apt 
to mislead and perplex the unwary. This second 
class of texts, however, when approached by 
the light of the argument already made good, 
and exhibited also in that of their own evi- 
dence, will afford the most triumphant refutation 
of the notions of those who, to their denial of the 
Godhead of our Lord, add a proud and Pharisaic 
rejection of the sacrificial efficacy of his death. 

We shall not, in the first instance, advert to 
the sacrifices under the patriarchal dispensation, 
as to the origin of which a difference of opinion 
exists, a subject on which some remarks will 
be offered in the sequel. Among the Jews, sac- 
rifices were unquestionably of Divine original ; 
and as terms taken from them are found applied 
so frequently to Christ and to his sufferings 
in the New Testament, they serve further to 
explain that peculiarity under which, as we have 
seen, the apostles regarded the death of Christ, 
and afford additional proof that it was con- 
sidered by them as a sacrifice of expiation, as 
the grand universal sin offering for the whole 
world. 

He is announced by John, his forerunner, as 
" the Lamb op God ;" and that not with refer- 
ence to meekness or any other moral virtue ; 
but with an accompanying phrase, which would 
communicate to a Jew the full sacrificial sense 
of the term employed — "the Lamb of God 
which taketh away the sin of the world." 
He is called "our passover, sacrificed for us." 
He is said to have given "himself for us, an 
offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet- 
smelling savor." As a Priest, it was neces- 
sary that he should have somewhat to offer ; and 
he offered himself, " his own blood," to which 
is ascribed the washing away of sin, and our 
eternal redemption. He is declared to have 
"put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," to 
have "by himself purged our sins," to have 
"sanctified the people by his own blood," 
to have "offered one sacrifice for sins." 
Add to these, and innumerable other similar ex- 
pressions and allusions, the argument of the 
apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which, 
by proving at length that the sacrifice of Christ 
was superior in efficacy to the sacrifices of the 
law, he most unequivocally assumes that the 
death of Christ was a sacrifice and sin offering ; 
for without that it would no more have been 
capable of comparison with the sacrifices of the 
law, than the death of John the Baptist, St. 
Stephen, or St, James, all martyrs and sufferers 
for the truth, who had recently sealed their 



testimony with their blood. This very compari- 
son, we may boldly affirm, is utterly unaccount- 
able and absurd on any hypothesis which denies 
the sacrifice of Christ ; for what relation could 
his death have to the Levitical immolations and 
offerings, if it had no sacrificial character? 
Nothing could, in fact, be more misleading, and 
even absurd, than to apply those terms which, 
both among Jews and Gentiles, were in use to ex- 
press the various processes and means of atone- 
ment and piacular propitiation, if the apostles and 
Christ himself did not intend to represent his death 
strictly as an expiation for sin: misleading, because 
such would be the natural and necessary inference 
from the terms themselves, which had acquired 
this as their established meaning ; and absurd, 
because if, as Socinians say, they used them 
metaphorically, there was not even an ideal 
resemblance between the figure and that which 
it was intended to illustrate. So totally irrele- 
vant, indeed, will those terms appear to any 
notion entertained of the death of Christ which 
excludes its expiatory character, that to assume 
that our Lord and his apostles used them as 
metaphors, is profanely to assume them to be 
such writers as would not in any other case be 
tolerated: writers wholly unacquainted with 
the commonest rules of elocution, and therefore 
wholly unfit to be teachers of others, not only in 
religion, but in things of inferior importance. 

The use of such terms, we have said, would 
not only be wholly absurd, but criminally mis- 
leading to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, 
who were first converted to Christianity. To 
them the notion of propitiatory offerings, offer- 
ings to avert the displeasure of the gods, and 
which expiated the crimes of offenders, was 
most familiar, and the corresponding terms in 
constant use. The bold denial of this by Dr. 
Priestley might well bring upon him the re- 
proof of Archbishop Magee, who, after esta- 
blishing this point from the Greek and Latin 
writers, observes, "So clearly does their lan- 
guage announce the notion of a propitiatory 
atonement, that if we would avoid an imputation 
on Dr. Priestley's fairness, we are driven, of 
necessity, to question the extent of his acquaint- 
ance with those writers." The reader may con- 
sult the instances given by this writer, in No. 5 
of his Illustrations appended to his Discourses on 
the Atonement ; and particularly the tenth chap- 
ter of Grotius's Dc Satisfactione, whose learning 
has most amply illustrated and firmly settled 
this view of the heathen sacrifices. Tho use to 
be made of this in the argument is, thai as the 
apostles found tho very terms they used with 
reference to the nature and efficacy of tho death 
of Christ fixed in an expiatory signification 



444 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



among the Greeks, they could not, in honesty, 
use them in a distant figurative sense, much less 
in a contrary one, without due notice of their 
having invested them with a new import being 
given to their readers. From ayoc, a pollution, 
an impurity, which was to be expiated by sacri- 
fice, are derived uyvi& and ayidfa, which de- 
note the act of expiation ; Kadaipco, too, to purify, 
cleanse, is applied to the effect of expiation; 
and ilatjKO) denotes the method of propitiating 
the gods by sacrifice. These, and other words 
of similar import, are used by the authors of 
the Septuagint, and by the evangelists and apos- 
tles ; but they give no notice of using them in 
any strange and altered sense ; and when they 
apply them to the death of Christ, they must, 
therefore, be understood to use them in their re- 
ceived meaning. 

In like manner the Jews had their expiatory 
sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in 
them are, in like manner, employed by the apos- 
tles to characterize the death of their Lord ; and 
they would have been as guilty of misleading 
their Jewish as their Gentile readers, had they 
employed them in a new sense, and without 
warning, which unquestionably they never gave. 

The force of this has been felt ; and as, in order 
to avoid it, the two points, the expiatory nature 
of the Jewish sacrifices and their typical signa- 
ture, have been questioned, it will be necessary to 
establish each. 

As to the expiatory nature of the sacrifices of 
the law, it is not necessary to show that all 
the Levitical offerings were of this character. 
There were also offerings for persons and for 
things prescribed for purification, which were 
incidental ; but even they grew out of the lead- 
ing notion of expiatory sacrifice, and that legal 
purification which resulted from the forgiveness 
of sins. It is enough to show that the grand 
and eminent sacrifices of the Jews were strictly 
expiatory, and that by them the offerers were 
released from punishment and death, for which 
ends they were appointed by the Lawgiver. 

When we speak, too, of vicarious sacrifice, we 
do not mean either, on the one hand, such a 
substitution as that the victim should bear the 
same quantum of pain and suffering as the of- 
fender himself; or, on the other, that it was put 
in the place of the offender as a mere symbolical 
act, by which he confessed his desert of punish- 
ment; but a substitution made by Divine ap- 
pointment, by which the victim was exposed to 
sufferings and death instead of the offender, in 
virtue of which the offender himself should be 
released. In this view one can scarcely conceive 
why so able a writer as Archbishop Magee should 
prefer to use the term "vicarious import" rather 



[PART II. 

than the simple and established term "vicarious ;" 
since the Antinomian notion of substitution may 
be otherwise sufficiently guarded against, and the 
phrase "vicarious import" is certainly capable 
of being resolved into that figurative notion of 
mere symbolical action, which, however plaus- 
ible, does, in fact, deprive the ancient sacrifices 
of their typical, and the oblation of Christ of its 
real efficacy. Vicarious acting, is acting for 
another ; vicarious suffering, is suffering for an- 
other ; but the nature and circumstances of that 
suffering in the case of Christ, are to be deter- 
mined by the doctrine of Scripture at large, and 
not wholly by the term itself, which is, however, 
useful for this purpose, (and therefore to be pre- 
served,) that it indicates the sense in which those 
who use it understand the declaration of Scrip- 
ture that Christ " died for us," to be that he 
died not merely for our benefit, but in our stead; 
in other words, that but for his having died, 
those who believe in him would personally have 
suffered that death which is the penalty of every 
violation of the law of God. 

That sacrifices under the law were expiatory 
and vicarious, admits of abundant proof. 

The chief objections made to this doctrine are, 
first, that under the law, in all capital cases, the 
offender, upon legal proof or conviction, was 
doomed to die, and that no sacrifice could ex- 
empt him from the penalty. Secondly, that in 
all lower cases to which the law had not attached 
capital punishment, but pecuniary mulcts, or 
personal labor or servitude, upon their non- 
payment, this penalty was to be strictly exe- 
cuted, and none could plead any privilege or 
exemption on account of sacrifice ; and that 
when sacrifices were ordained with a pecuniary 
mulct, they are to be regarded in the light of 
fine, one part of which was paid to the state, the 
other to the Church. This was the mode of ar- 
gument adopted by the author of " the Moral 
Philosopher," and nothing of weight has been 
added to these objections since. 

Now much of this may be granted, without any 
prejudice to the argument; and, indeed, is no 
more than the most orthodox writers on this sub- 
ject have often adverted to. The law under 
which the Jews were placed was at once, as to 
them, both a moral and a political law ; and the 
Lawgiver excepted certain offences from the be- 
nefit of a pardon, which implied exemption from 
temporal death, which was the state penalty, and 
therefore would accept no atonement for such 
transgressions. Blasphemy, idolatry, murder, 
and adultery, were those " presumptuous sins" 
which were thus exempted, and the reason will 
be seen in the political relation of the people to 
God. In refusing this exemption from punish- 



CH. XXI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



445 



ment in this world, in certain cases, respect was 
had to the order and benefit of society. Running 
parallel, however, with this political application 
of the law to the Jews as subjects of the theo- 
cracy, we see the authority of the moral law 
kept over them as men and creatures ; and if 
these "presumptuous sins," of blasphemy and 
idolatry, of murder and adultery, and a few 
others, were the only capital crimes, considered 
politically, they were not the only capital crimes, 
considered morally; that is, there were other 
crimes which would have subjected the offender 
to death, but for this provision of expiatory ob- 
lations. The true question then is, whether such 
sacrifices were appointed by God, and accepted 
instead of the personal punishment or life of the 
offender, which otherwise would have been for- 
feited, as in the other cases; and if so, if the 
life of animal sacrifices was accepted instead of 
the life of man, then the notion that they were 
mere mulcts and pecuniary penalties falls to the 
ground, and the vicarious nature of most of the 
Levitical oblations is established. 

That other offences, besides those above men- 
tioned, were capital, that is, exposed the offender 
to death, is clear from this, that all offences 
against the law had this capital character. As 
death was the sanction of the commandment 
given to Adam, so every one who transgressed 
any part of the law of Moses became guilty of 
death : every man was accursed, that is, devoted 
to die, who " continued not in all things 
written in the book of the law:" "the man 
that doeth them shall live in them," was the 
rule; and it was, therefore, to redeem the of- 
fenders from this penalty that sacrifices were 
appointed. So, with reference to the great day 
of expiation, we read, "For on that day shall 
the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse 
you, that you may be clean from all your sins ; 
and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, 
to make an atonement for the children of Israel 
for all their sins, once a year." Lev. xvi. 30-34. 

To prove that this was the intention and effect 
of the annual sacrifices of the Jews, we need do 
little more than refer to Leviticus xvii. 10, 11: 
" I will set my face against that soul that eateth 
blood, and will cut him off from among his peo- 
ple. For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; 
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make 
an atonement for tour souls ; for it is the blood 
that makcth an atonement for the soul." Here 
the blood which is said to make atonement for 
the soul is the blood of the victims ; and to make 
an atonement for the soul is the same as to be a 
ransom for the soul, as will appear by referring 
to Exodus xxx. 12-1G; and to be a ransom for 
the soul is to avert death. "They shall give 



every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, 
that there be no plague among them," by which 
their lives might be suddenly taken away. The 
" soul" is also here used obviously for the life: 
the blood, or the life, of the victims in all the 
sacrifices, was substituted for the life of man, to 
preserve him from death, and the victims were 
therefore vicarious. ( Vide Outram de Sacrif, lib. 
1, c. xxii.) 

The Hebrew word rendered atonement, '153, 
signifying primarily to cover, overspread, has been 
the subject of some evasive criticisms. It comes, 
however, in the secondary sense to signify atone- 
ment, or propitiation, because the effect of that 
is to cover, or, in Scripture meaning, to obtain 
the forgiveness of offences. The Septuagint, 
also, renders it by ktjthdGno/iai, to appease, to make 
propitious. It is used, indeed, where the means 
of atonement are not of the sacrificial kind, but 
these "instances equally serve to evince the 
Scripture sense of the term, in cases of trans- 
gression, to be that of reconciling the offended 
Deity, by averting his displeasure ; so that when 
the atonement for sin is said to be made by sac- 
rifice, no doubt can remain that the sacrifice 
was strictly a sacrifice of propitiation. Agree- 
ably to this conclusion, we find it expressly de- 
clared, in the several cases of piacular oblations 
for transgression of the Divine commands, that 
the sin for which atonement was made by those 
oblations should be forgiven." (Magee's Dis- 
courses, vol. i. page 332.) 

As the notion that the sacrifices of the law 
were not vicarious, but mere mulcts and fines, is 
overturned by the general appointment of the 
blood to be an atonement for the souls, the forfeited 
lives of men, so also is it contradicted by parti- 
cular instances. Let us refer to Lev. v. 15, 16: 
"If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through 
ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord, he 
shall make amends for the harm that he hath 
done in the holy thing, and shall add a fifth part 
thereto, and give it unto the priest." Here, 
indeed, is the proper "fine" for the trespass; 
but it is added, "he shall bring for his trespass 
unto the Lord, a ram without blemish, and the 
priest shall make an atonement for him, with the 
ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be for- 
given him." Thus, then, so far from the sacri- 
fice being the fine, the fine is distinguished from 
it, and with the ram only was tho atonement 
made to the Lord for his trespass. Nor can the 
ceremonies, with which the trespass and sin of- 
ferings were accompanied, agree with any notion 
but that of their vicarious character. The "wor- 
shipper, conscious of his trespass, brought an 
animal, his own property, to the door of tho 
tabernacle. This was not a eucharistioal act. 



446 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



not a memorial of mercies received, but of sins 
committed. He laid his hands upon the head of 
the animal, the symbolical act of transfer of 
punishment, then slew it with his own hand, 
and delivered it to the priest, who burnt the fat 
and part of the animal upon the altar, and having 
sprinkled part of the blood upon the altar, and, 
in some cases, upon the offerer himself, poured 
the rest at the bottom of the altar. And thus, 
we are told, " the priest shall make an atonement 
for him, as concerning his sin, and it shall be for- 
given him." So clearly is it made manifest by 
these actions, and by the description of their 
nature and end, that the animal bore the punish- 
ment of the offender, and that by this appoint- 
ment he was reconciled to God, and obtained the 
forgiveness of his offences. 

An equally strong proof that the life of the 
animal sacrifice was accepted in place of the life 
of man, is afforded by the fact that atonement 
was required by the law to be made, by sin 
offerings and burnt offerings, for even bodily 
distempers and disorders. It is not necessary to 
the argument to explain the distinctions between 
these various oblations, 1 nor yet to inquire into 
the reason which required propitiation to be 
made for corporal infirmities, which, in many 
cases, could not be avoided. They were, how- 
ever, thus connected with sin as the cause of all 
these disorders; and God, who had placed his 
residence among the Israelites, insisted upon a 
perfect ceremonial purity, to impress upon them 
a sense of his moral purity, and the necessity of 
purification of mind. Whether these were the 
reasons, or whatever other reason there might 
be in the case, and whether it is at all discover- 
able by us, all such unclean persons were liable 
to death, and were exempted from it only by ani- 
mal sacrifices. This appears from the conclu- 
sion to all the Levitical directions concerning 
the ceremonial to be followed in all such cases. 
Lev. xv. 31 : "Thus shall ye separate the child- 
ren of Israel from their uncleanness ; that they 
die not in (or by) their uncleanness, when they 
defile my tabernacle that is among them." So 
that by virtue of the sin offerings, the children 
of Israel were saved from a death, which other- 
wise they would have suffered for their unclean- 
ness, and that by substituting the life of the 
animal for the life of the offerer. Nor can it be 
urged that death is, in these instances, threat- 
ened only as a punishment of not observing 
these laws of purification, for the reason given 
in the passage just quoted, for the threatening 
of death is not hypothetical upon their not bring- 
ing the prescribed atonement, but is grounded 

1 On this subject, see Outram, De Sacrifices. 



upon the fact of " defiling the tabernacle of the 
Lord, which was among them," which is sup- 
posed to be done by all uncleanness as such, in 
the first instance. 

As a further proof of the vicarious character 
of the principal sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, 
we may instance those statedly offered for the whole 
congregation. Every day were offered two lambs, 
one in the morning and the other in the even- 
ing, "for a continual burnt offering." To these 
daily victims were to be added, weekly, two 
other lambs for the burnt offering of every Sab- 
bath. None of these could be considered in the 
light of fines for offences, since they were offered 
for no particular persons, and must be con- 
sidered, therefore, unless resolved into an un- 
meaning ceremony, piacular and vicarious. To 
pass over, however, the monthly sacrifices, and 
those offered at the great feasts, it is sufficient 
to fix upon those which are so often alluded to 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, offered on the 
solemn anniversary of expiation. On that day, 
to other prescribed sacrifices, were to be added 
another ram for a burnt offering, and another 
goat, the most eminent of all the sacrifices, for a 
sin offering, whose blood was to be carried by 
the high priest into the inner sanctuary, which 
was not done by the blood of any other victim, 
except the bullock, which was offered the same 
day as a sin offering for the family of Aaron. 
"The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby 
atonement was to be made 'for all the sins' of 
the whole Jewish people, are so strikingly signi- 
ficant that they deserve a particular detail. On 
the day appointed for this general expiation, the 
priest is commanded to offer a bullock and a 
goat, as sin offerings, the one for himself, and 
the other for the people, and having sprinkled 
the blood of these, in due form, before the 
mercy-seat, to lead forth a second goat, denomi- 
nated the scape-goat ; and after laying both his 
hands upon the head of the scape-goat, and con- 
fessing over him all the iniquities of the people, 
to put them upon the head of the goat, and to 
send the animal, thus bearing the sins of the 
people, away into the wilderness : in this manner 
expressing, by an action which cannot be mis- 
understood, that the atonement, which it is 
affirmed was to be effected by the sacrifice of the 
sin offering, consisted in removing from the 
people their iniquities by this translation of 
them to the animal. For it is to be remarked, 
that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a dis- 
tinct one: it is a continuation of the process, 
and is evidently the concluding part and symbol- 
ical consummation of the sin offering. So that 
the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon 
the head of the scape-goat, and the bearing them 



CH. XXI.] 

away into the -wilderness, manifestly imply that 
the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the 
sin offering consisted in the transfer, and con- 
sequent removal of those iniquities." — Magee's 
Discourses. 

How, then, is this impressive and singular 
ceremonial to be explained? Shall we resort 
to the notion of mulcts and fines? but if so, 
then, this and other stated sacrifices must be 
considered in the light of penal enactments. 
But this cannot agree with the appointment of 
such sacrifices annually in succeeding genera- 
tions — " This shall be a statute for ever unto 
you." The law appoints a certain day in the 
year for expiating the sins both of the high 
priest himself and of the whole congregation, 
and that for all high priests, and all generations 
of the congregation. Now, could a law be en- 
acted, inflicting a certain penalty, at a certain 
time, upon a whole people, as well as upon their 
high priest, thus presuming upon their actual 
transgression of it ? The sacrifice was also for 
sins in general, and yet the penalty, if it were 
one, is not greater than individual persons were 
often obliged to undergo for single trespasses. 
Nothing, certainly, can be more absurd than 
this hypothesis. [Vide Chapman's Eusebius.) 

Shall we account for it by saying that sacri- 
fices were offered for the benefit of the worshipper, 
but exclude the notion of expiation ? But here 
we are obliged to confine the benefit to recon- 
ciliation and the taking away of sins, and that by 
the appointed means of the shedding of blood, and 
the presentation of blood in the holy place, 
accompanied by the expressive ceremony of im- 
position of hands upon the head of the victim ; 
the import of which act is fixed beyond all con- 
troversy, by the priest's confessing, at the same 
time, over that victim, the sins of all the people, 
and imprecating upon its head the vengeance 
due to them. Lev. xvi. 21. 

Shall we content ourselves with merely say- 
ing that this was a symbol ? But the question 
remains, Of what was it the symbol ? To deter- 
mine that, let the several parts of the symbolic 
action be enumerated. Here is confession of 
sin — confession before God, at the door of his 
tabernacle — the substitution of a victim — the 
figurative transfer of sins to that victim — the 
shedding of blood, which God appointed to make 
atonement for the soul — the carrying the blood 
into the holiest place, the very permission of 
which clearly marked the Divine acceptance — 
the bearing away of iniquity — and the actual 
reconciliation of the people to God. If, then, 
this is symbolical, it has nothing correspondent 
with it: it never had or can have any thing 
correspondent to it but the sacrificial death of 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



447 



Jesus Christ, and the communication of the 
benefits of his passion in the forgiveness of sins 
to those that believe in him, and their reconcilia- 
tion with God. 

Shall we, finally, say, that those sacrifices had 
respect not to God to obtain pardon by expia- 
tion, but to the offerer, teaching him moral 
lessons, and calling forth moral dispositions? 
We answer, that this hypothesis leaves many of 
the essential circumstances of the ceremonial 
wholly unaccounted for. The tabernacle and 
temple were erected for the residence of God, 
by his own command. There it was his will to 
be approached, and to these sacred places the 
victims were required to be brought. Any- 
where else they might as well have been offered, 
if they had had respect only to the offerer ; but 
they were required to be brought to God, to be 
offered according to a prescribed ritual, and by 
an order of men appointed for that purpose. 
"But there is no other reason why they should 
be offered in the sanctuary, than this, that they 
were offered to the inhabitant of the sanctuary ; 
nor could they be offered to him without having 
respect to him, or without his being the object 
of their efficacy, as in the case of solemn prayers 
addressed to him. There were some victims 
whose blood, on the day of atonement, was to be 
carried into the inner sanctuary; but for what 
purpose can we suppose the blood to have been 
carried into the most sacred part of the Divine 
residence, and that on the day of atonement, 
except to obtain the favor of him in whose pre- 
sence it was sprinkled?" (Outram, De Sacri- 
ficiis.) To this we may add, that the reason 
given for these sacred services is not in any case 
a mere moral effect to be produced upon the 
minds of the worshippers: they were to make 
atonement, that is, to avert God's displeasure, 
that the people might not "die." 

We may find also another most explicit illus- 
tration in the sacrifice of the passover. The 
sacrificial character of this offering is strongly 
marked ; for it was, Corban, an offering brought 
to the tabernacle : it was slain in the sanctuary, 
and the blood sprinkled upon the altar by the 
priests. It derives its name from the passing 
over and sparing the houses of the Israelites, on 
the door-posts of which the blood of the immo- 
lated lamb was sprinkled, when the first-born 
in the houses of the Egyptians were slain ; and 
thus we have another instance of life being spared 
by the instituted means of animal sacrifice. 
Nor need we confine ourselves to particular 
instances: "Almost all things," says an autho- 
rity who surely knew his subject, "arc by the 
law purged witli blood, and without shedding of 
blood is no remission." 



448 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



By their very law and by constant usage, 
then, were the Jews familiarized to the notion 
of expiatory sacrifice, as well as by the history 
contained in their sacred books, especially in 
Genesis, which speaks of the vicarious sacri- 
fices offered by the patriarchs, and the book of 
Job, in which that patriarch is recorded to have 
offered sacrifices for the supposed sins of his 
sons, and Eliphaz is commanded by a Divine 
oracle to offer a burnt offering for himself and 
his friends, lest God should deal with them after 
their folly. 

On the sentiments of the uninspired Jewish 
writers on this point, the substitution of the life 
of the animal for that of the offerer, and, conse- 
quently, the expiatory nature of their sacrifices, 
Outram has given many quotations from their 
writings, which the reader may consult in his work 
on Sacrifices. Two or three only need be adduced 
by way of specimen. R. Levi Ben Gerson 
says, " The imposition of the hands of the 
offerers was designed to indicate that their sins 
were removed from themselves and transferred 
to the animal." Isaac Ben Arama — "He trans- 
fers his sins from himself, and lays them upon 
the head of his victim." B. Moses Ben Nach- 
man says, with respect to a sinner offering a 
victim, "It was just that his blood should be 
shed, and that his body should be burned ; but 
the Creator, of his mercy, accepted this victim 
from him, as his substitute and ransom : that the 
blood of the animal might be shed instead of his 
blood : that is, that the blood of the animal might 
be given for his life." 

Full of these ideas of vicarious expiation, 
then, the apostles wrote and spoke, and the 
Jews of their time and in subsequent ages heard 
and read the books of the New Testament. The 
Socinian pretence is, that the inspired penmen 
used the sacrificial terms which occur in their 
writings figuratively ; but we not only reply, as 
before, that they could not do this honestly, un- 
less they had given notice of this new applica- 
tion of the established terms of the Jewish 
theology; but that, if this be assumed, their 
writings leave us wholly at a loss to discover 
what it really was which they intended to teach 
by these sacrificial terms and allusions. They 
are themselves utterly silent as to this, and the 
varying theories of those who reject the doc- 
trine of atonement, in fact, confess that their 
writings afford no solution of the difficulty. If, 
therefore, it is blasphemous to suppose, on the 
one hand, that inspired men should write on 
purpose to mislead, so, on the other, it is utterly 
inconceivable that, had they only been ordinary 
writers, they should construct a figurative lan- 
guage out of terms which had a definite and 



established sense, without giving any intimation 
at all that they employed them otherwise than 
in their received meaning, or telling us why 
they adopted them at alL and more especially 
when they knew that they must be interpreted, 
both by Jews and Greeks, in a sense which, if 
the Socinians are right, was in direct opposition 
to that which they intended to convey. 

This will, however, appear with additional 
evidence, when the typical as well as the ex- 
piatory character of the legal sacrifices is con- 
sidered. In strict argument, the latter does not 
depend upon the former, and if the oblations of 
the Mosaic institute had not been intentionally 
adumbrative of the one oblation of Christ, the 
argument from their vicarious and expiatory 
character would still have been valid. For if 
the legal sacrifices were offered in place of the 
offender, blood for blood, life for life, and if the 
death of Christ is represented to be, in as true a 
sense, a sacrifice and expiation, then is the doc- 
trine of the New Testament writers, as to the 
expiatory character of the death of our Lord, 
explicitly established. 

That the Levitical sacrifices were also types, is 
another argument, and accumulates the already 
preponderating evidence. 

A type, in the theological sense, is defined by 
systematic writers to be a sign or example, pre- 
pared and designed by God to prefigure some 
future thing. It is required that it should re- 
present (though the degree of clearness may be 
very different in different instances) this future 
object, either by something which it has in com- 
mon with it, or in being the symbol of some 
property which it possesses : that it should be 
prepared and designed by God thus to represent 
its antitype, which circumstance distinguishes 
it from a simile, and from hieroglyphic : that it 
should give place to the antitype so soon as the 
latter appears ; and that the efficacy of the an- 
titype should exist in the type in appearance 
only, or in a lower degree. ( Vide Outram, Be 
Sacrificiis.) These may be considered as the gen- 
eral properties of a type. 

Of this kind are the views given us, in the 
Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament, of the 
Levitical dispensation, and of many events and 
examples of the Mosaic history. Thus, St. Paul 
calls the meats and drinks, the holy days, new 
moons, and Sabbaths of the Jews, including in 
them the services performed in the celebration of 
these festivals, " a shadow of things to come;" 
i( the body" of which shadow, whose form the 
shadow generally and faintly exhibited, "is 
Christ." Again, when speaking of the things 
which happened to the Israelites in the wilder- 
ness, he calls them " ensamples," (tvttoi,) types, 



CH. XXI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



449 



"written for our admonition, upon whom the 
ends of the world are come." In Hebrews x. 1, 
the same apostle, when he discourses expressly 
on the "sacrifices" of the tabernacle, calls them 
"the shadow of good things to come," and places 
them in contrast with "the very image of the 
things," that is, the " good things" just before 
mentioned; and, in the preceding chapter, he 
tells us that the services performed in the taber- 
nacle prefigured what was afterward to be trans- 
acted in the heavenly sanctuary. These instances 
are sufficient for the argument, and in examining 
them we may observe, that if the things here 
alluded to are not allowed to be types, then they 
are used as mere illustrative rhetorical illustra- 
tions, and in their original institution had no 
more reference to the facts and doctrines of the 
Christian system than the sacrificial services of 
pagan temples, which might, in some particulars, 
upon this hypothesis, just as well have served 
the apostle's purpose. But if, upon examina- 
tion, this notion of their being used merely as 
rhetorical illustrations be contradicted by the 
passages themselves, then the true typical char- 
acter of these events and ceremonies may be 
considered as fairly established. 

With respect to the declaration of St. Paul, 
that the punishments inflicted upon the disobe- 
dient and unfaithful Israelites in the wilderness 
were "types written for our admonition," it is 
only to be explained by considering the history 
of that people as designedly, and by appoint- 
ment, typical. These things happened for types ; 
and that, by types, the apostle means much more 
than a general admonitory correspondence be- 
tween disobedience and punishment, which many 
other circumstances might just as well have 
afforded, he adds, that " they were written for 
our admonition, upon whom the ends of the 
world are come;" that is, for the admonition of 
Christians who had entered into the obligations 
of the new dispensation. For this purpose they 
were recorded: by this act of God they were 
made types in the highest sense ; and could not 
become types in the sense of mere figurative 
illustration, which would have been contingent 
upon this rhetorical use being made of them by 
some subsequent writer. This is further con- 
firmed also by the preceding verses, in which the 
apostle calls the manna "spiritual meat," which 
can only be understood of it as being a type of 
the bread which came down from heaven, even 
Christ, who, in allusion to the samo fact, so de- 
signates himself. The "rock," too, is called the 
spiritual rock, and that rock, adds the apostle, 
"was Christ; 11 but in what conceivable mean- 
ing, except as it was an appointed typo of him ? 

This is St. Paul's general description of the 
29 



typical character of "the Church in the wilder- 
ness." In the other passages quoted, he ad- 
duces, in particular, the Levitical services. He 
calls the ceremonial of the law "a shadow: 11 
(gkio,:) in the Epistle to the Colossians, he op- 
poses this shadow to " the body ;" in that to the 
Hebrews, to "the very image; by which he ob- 
viously means the reality of "the good things" 
adumbrated, or their essential form or substance. 
Now, whether we take the word otaa. for the sha- 
dow of the body of man, or for a faint delinea- 
tion, or sketch, to be succeeded by a finished 
picture, it is clear, that whatever the law was, it 
was by Divine appointment ; and as there is a re- 
lation between the shadow and the body which 
produces it, and the sketch or outline and the 
finished picture, so if, by Divine appointment, 
the law was this shadow of good things to come, 
which is what the apostle asserts, then there was 
an intended relation of one to the other, quite 
independent of the figurative and rhetorical use 
which might be made of a mere accidental com- 
parison. If the apostle speaks figuratively only, 
then the law is to be supposed to have no ap- 
pointed relation to the gospel, as a shadow or 
sketch of good things to come, and this relation 
is one of imagination only ; if the relation was 
a designed and an appointed one, then the reso- 
lution of the apostle's words into figurative al- 
lusion cannot be maintained. But, further, the 
apostle grounds an argument upon these types ; 
an argument, too, of the most serious kind : an 
argument for renouncing the law and embracing 
the gospel, upon the penalty of eternal danger 
to the soul : no absurdity can, therefore, be 
greater than to suppose him to argue so weighty 
and important a question upon a relation of one 
thing to another existing only in the imagina- 
tion, and not appointed by God ; and if the re- 
lation was so appointed, it is of that instituted 
and adumbrative kind which constitutes a type 
in its special and theological sense. 

Of this appointment and designation of the tab- 
ernacle service to be a shadow of good things to 
come, the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews affords several direct and unequivocal 
declarations. So verse seven and eight, "But 
into the second went the high priest alone, once 
every year, not without blood, which he offered 
for himself, and for the errors of the people ; the 
Holy Ghost this signifying, (sJioicing, declaring 
by this type,) that the way into the holiest of all 
was not yet made manifest." Here wo havo 
the declaration of a doctrine by type, which is 
surely very different to the figurative use of a 
fact, employed to embellish and enforce an argu- 
ment by a subsequent writei*, and this is also re- 
ferred to the design and intention of the "Holy 



450 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



Ghost" himself, at the time when the Levitical 
ritual was prescribed, and this typical declara- 
tion was to continue until the new dispensation 
should be introduced. In verse nine, the taber- 
nacle itself is called a figure or parable : "Which 
was a figure (7rapafto?Jrj) for the time then pre- 
sent." It was a parable by which the evangelical 
and spiritual doctrines were taught ; it was an 
appointed parable, because limited to a certain 
time, "for the time then present," that is, until the 
bringing in of the things signified, to which it 
had this designed relation. Again, verse 23, 
"the things under the law" are called "patterns 
(representations) of things in the heavens;" and 
in verse 24, the holy places made with hands are 
denominated "the figures" (antitypes) "of the 
true." Were they then representations and an- 
titypes only in St. Paul's imagination, or in re- 
ality and by appointment ? Read his argument : 
" It was necessary that the patterns of things in 
the heavens should be purified with these ; but 
the heavenly things themselves with better sa- 
crifices than these." On the hypothesis that 
sacrificial terms and allusions are employed 
figuratively only by the apostle, what kind of 
argument, we may ask, is this ? On what does 
the common necessity of the purification, both of 
the earthly and the heavenly tabernacle, by sac- 
rifices, though different in their degree of value 
and efficacy, rest ? Could the apostle say that 
this was necessary, to afford him a figurative 
embellishment in writing his epistle ? The ne- 
cessity is clearly grounded upon the relation in- 
stituted by the Author of the Levitical economy 
himself: the heavenly places were not to be 
entered by sinners, but through the blood of 
"better sacrifices;" and to teach this doctrine 
early to mankind, it was "necessary" to purify 
the earthly tabernacle, and thus give the people 
access to it only by the blood of the inferior sac- 
rifices, that both they and the tabernacle might 
be the types of evangelical and heavenly things, 
and that they might be taught the only means of 
obtaining access to the tabernacle in heaven. 
There was, therefore, in setting up these "pat- 
terns" an intentioned adumbration of these 
future things, and hence the word used is vno- 
Seiyjua, the import of which is shown in chapter 
viii. 5, where it is associated with the term, the 
shadow of heavenly things — " Who serve unto the 
example and shadow of heavenly things," or 
" these" priests "perform the service with a re- 
presentation and shadow of the heavenly things." 
The sacrificial ceremonies, then, of the Levi- 
tical institute, are clearly established to be 
typical, and have all the characters which con- 
stitute a type in the received theological sense. 
They are represented by St. Paul, in the passages 



[part n. 

which have been under consideration, as adum- 
brative ; as designed and appointed to be so by 
God ; as having respect to things future, to Christ 
and to his sacerdotal ministry ; as being inferior 
in efficacy to the antitypes which correspond to 
them, the "better sacrifices" of which he speaks; 
and they were all displaced by the antitype, the 
Levitical ceremony being repealed by the death 
and ascension of our Lord. 

Since, then, both the expiatory and the typical 
characters of the Jewish sacrifices were so clearly 
held by the writers of the New Testament, there 
can be no rational doubt as to the sense in which 
they apply sacrificial terms and allusions, to 
describe the nature and effect of the death of 
Christ. As the offering of the animal sacrifice 
took away sin, that is, obtained remission for 
offences against the law, we can be at no loss to 
know what the Baptist means when, pointing to 
Christ, he exclaims, "Behold the Lamb of God, 
which taketh away the sin of the world." As 
there was a transfer of suffering and death, from 
the offender to the legally clean and sound vic- 
tim, so Christ died, "the just for the unjust:" as 
the animal sacrifice was expiating, so Christ is 
our IXaajibe, propitiation, or expiation : as by the 
Levitical oblations men were reconciled to God, so 
"we, when enemies, were reconciled to God by 
the death of his Son :" as, under the law, "with- 
out shedding of blood there was no remission," 
so, as to Christ, we are "justified by his blood," 
and have "redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of sins:" as by the blood of the ap- 
pointed sacrifices, the holy places, made with 
hands, were made accessible to the Jewish wor- 
shippers, that blood being carried into them, 
and sprinkled by the high priest, so "Christ 
entered once, with his own blood, into the holy 
place, having obtained eternal redemption for 
us," and has thus opened for us a "new and 
living way" into the celestial sanctuary : as the 
blood of the Mosaic oblations was the blood of 
the Old Testament, so he himself says, " This is 
my blood of the New Testament, shed for the 
remission of sins :" as it was a part of the sacri- 
ficial solemnity, in some instances, to feast upon 
the victim, so, with direct reference to this, our 
Lord also declares that he would give his own 
"flesh for the life of the world ;" and that "who- 
so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath 
eternal life ; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my 
blood is drink indeed ;" that is, it is in truth and 
reality what the flesh and blood of the Jewish 
victims were in type. 

The instances of this use of sacrificial terms 
are, indeed, almost innumerable ; and enough, I 
trust, has been said to show that they could not 
be employed in a merely figurative sense ; never- 



CH. XXI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



451 



theless, there are two or three passages in which 
they occur as the basis of an argument which 
depends upon taking them in the receiyed sense, 
with a brief consideration of which we may con- 
clude this part of the subject. 

When St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, 
says, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, 
who knew no sin," or, " him who knew no sin, he 
hath made to be sin for us, that we might be 
made the righteousness of God in him," he con- 
cludes a discourse upon our reconciliation to God, 
and lays this down as the general principle upon 
which that reconciliation of which he has been 
speaking is to be explained and enforced. Here, 
then, the question is, in what sense Christ was made 
sin for us. Not, certainly, as to the guilt of it, 
for it is expressly said that "he knew no sin ;" but 
as to the expiation of it, by his personal sufferings, 
by which he delivers the guilty from punishment. 
For the phrase is manifestly taken from the sin 
offerings of the Old Testament, which are there 
sometimes called "sins," as being offerings for sin, 
and because the animals sacrificed represented 
the sinners themselves. Thus, Lev. iv. 21, the 
bullock to be offered is called in our translation, 
more agreeably to our idiom, " a sin offering for 
the congregation;" but in the LXX. it is deno- 
minated " the sin of the congregation." So, also, 
in verse 29, as to the "kid of the goats " which was 
to be offered for the sin of private persons, the 
person offending was " to lay his hand upon the 
head of the sin offering,'''' as we rightly interpret 
it; but in the LXX., "upon the head of his sin," 
agreeably to the Hebrew word, which signifies 
indifferently either sin or the offering for it. 
Thus, again, in Lev. vi. 25, "This is the law of 
the sin offering ;" in the Greek, " This is the law 
of sin;" which also has, "They shall slay the 
sins before the Lord," for the sin offerings. The 
Greek of the Apostle Paul is thus easily ex- 
plained by that of the LXX., and affords a 
natural exposition of the passage — "Him who 
knew no sin, God hath made sin for us," as the 
sin offerings of the law were made sins for 
offenders, the death of innocent creatures ex- 
empting from death those who were really crimi- 
nal. (Vide Chai>man's Eusebius, chap, iv.) This 
allusion to the Levitical sin offerings is also esta- 
blished by the connection of Christ's sin offering 
with our reconciliation. Such was the effect of 
the sin offerings among the Jews, and such, St. 
Paul tells us, is the effect of Christ being made 
a sin offering for us : a sufficient proof that ho 
does not use the term figuratively, nor speak of 
the indirect but of the direct effect of the death 
of Christ in reconciling us to God. 

Again, in Ephes.Y. 2, " Christ hath loved us, and 
hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice 



to God for a sweet- smelling savor." Here, also, 
he uses the very terms applied to the Jewish 
sacrifices. How, then, could a Jew, or even a 
Gentile, understand him? "Would an inspired 
man use sacrificial language without a sacrificial 
sense, and merely amuse his readers with the 
sound of words without meaning, or employ 
them, without notice being given, in a meaning 
which the readers were not accustomed to affix to 
them ? The argument forbids this, as well as the 
reason and honesty of the case. His object was 
to impress the Ephesians with the deepest sense 
of the love of Christ; and he says, "Christ hath 
loved us, and hath given himself for us;" and then 
explains the mode in which he thus gave himself 
for us, that is, in our room and stead — " an 
offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet- 
smelling savor;" by which his readers could 
only understand that Christ gave himself up a 
sacrifice for them, as other sacrifices had been 
given up for them, "in the way of expiation, to 
obtain for them the mercy and favor of God." 
The cavil of Crellius and his followers on this 
passage is easily answered. He says that the 
phrase, "a sweet-smelling savor," is scarcely 
ever used of sin offerings or expiatory sacrifices ; 
but of burnt offerings, and peace offerings, by 
which expiation was not made. But here are 
two mistakes. The first lies in assuming that 
burnt offerings were not expiatory ; whereas 
they are said "to make atonement," and were 
so considered by the Jews, though sometimes 
also they were eucharistie. The second mistake 
is, that the phrase, "a sweet-smelling savor," 
is by some peculiar fitness applied to one class 
of offerings alone. It is a gross conception, that 
it relates principally to the odor of saerifices 
burned with fire ; whereas it signifies the accepta- 
bleness of sacrifices to God ; and is so explained 
in Phil. iv. 18, where the apostle calls the bounty 
of the Philippians, "an odor of a sweet smell;" 
and adds, exegetically, "a sacrifice acceptable, 
well pleasing to God." The phrase is, probably, 
taken from the incensing which aocompanied the 
sacrificial services. 

To these instances must be added the whole 
argument of St. Paul in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. To what purpose does he prove that 
Christ had a superior priesthood to Aaron, if 
Christ were only metaphorically a priest? What 
end is answered by proving that his offering of 
himself had greater efficacy than tho oblations 
of the tabernacle in taking away sin, if Bin was 
not taken away in the samo sense, that is, by ex- 
piation ? Why does he lay so mighty a stress 
upon the death of our Lord, as being "a better 
sacrifice," if, according to the reoeived Bense, it 
was no sacrifice at all? His argument, it is 



452 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



manifest, -would go for nothing, and be no better 
than an unworthy trifling with his readers, and 
especially with the Hebrews to whom he writes 
the epistle — beneath not only an inspired but an 
ordinary writer. Fully to unfold the argument, 
we might travel through the greater part of the 
epistle ; but one or two passages may suffice. 
In chap. vii. 27, speaking of Christ as our high 
priest, he says, " "Who needeth not daily, as those 
high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his 
own sins, and then for the people's ; for this 
(latter) he did once, when he offered up himself." 
The circumstance of his offering sacrifice not 
daily, but "once for all," marks the superior 
value and efficacy of his sacrifice ; his offering 
up this sacrifice " of himself" for the sins of the 
people, as the Jewish high priest offered his ani- 
mal sacrifices for the sins of the people, marks 
the similarity of the act; in both cases atone- 
ment was made, but with different degrees of 
efficacy; but unless atonement for sin was in 
reality made by his thus offering up " himself," 
the virtue and efficacy of Christ's sacrifice would 
be inferior to that of the Aaronical priesthood, 
contrary to the declared design and argument of 
the epistle. Let us also refer to chap. ix. 13, 14: 
"For if the blood of bulls and "of goats, and the 
ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sancti- 
fieth to the purifying of the flesh," so as to fit 
the offender for joining in the service of the 
tabernacle, " how much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered 
himself without spot to God, purge your con- 
science from dead works to serve the living 
God." The comparison here lies in this, that 
the Levitical sacrifices expiated legal punish- 
ments, but did not in themselves acquit the 
people absolutely in respect to God, as the 
Governor and Judge of mankind ; but that the 
blood of Christ extends its virtue to the con- 
science, and eases it of all guilty terror of the 
wrath to come on account of " dead works," or 
works which deserve death under the universal, 
moral law. The ground of this comparison, 
however, lies in the real efficacy of each of these 
expiations. Each "purifies," each delivers from 
guilt, but the latter only as "pertaining to the 
conscience," and the mode in each case is by ex- 
piation. But to interpret the purging of the 
conscience, as the Socinians, of mere dissuasion 
from dead works to come, or as descriptive of 
the power of Christ to acquit men, upon their 
repentance, declaratively destroys all just simili- 
tude between the blood of Christ and that of the 
animal sacrifices, and the argument amounts to 
nothing. 

We conclude with a passage, to which we have 
before adverted, which institutes a comparison 



[PART II. 



between the Levitical purification of the holy 
places made with hands, and the purification of 
the heavenly places by the blood of Christ. 
"And almost all things are by the law purged with 
blood, and without shedding of blood is no re- 
mission. It was therefore . necessary that the 
patterns of things in the heavens should be puri- 
fied with these ; but the heavenly things them- 
selves with better sacrifices than these. For 
Christ is not entered into the holy places made 
with hands, which are the figures of the true, but 
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence 
of God for us." To enter into the meaning of 
this passage, we are to consider that God dwelt 
personally among the Israelites ; that the sanc- 
tuary and tabernacle are represented as polluted 
by their sins, and even corporal impurities, the 
penalty of which was death, unless atoned for 
or expiated according to law, and that all unclean 
persons were debarred access to the tabernacle 
and the service of God, until expiation was 
made, and purification thereby effected. It was 
under these views that the sin offerings were 
made on the day of expiation, to which the 
apostle alludes in the above passage. Then the 
high priest entered into the holy of holies, with 
the blood of sacrifices, to make atonement both 
for himself and the whole people. He first of- 
fered for himself and for his house a bullock, 
and sprinkled the blood of it upon and before 
the mercy-seat within the veil. Afterward he 
killed a goat for a sin offering for the people, 
and sprinkled the blood in like manner. This 
was called atoning for, or hallowing and recon- 
ciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the 
congregation, " because of the uncleanness of 
the children of Israel, and because of their trans- 
gressions in all their sins." The effect of all 
this was the remission of sins, which is repre- 
sented by the scape-goat, who carried away the 
sins which had been confessed over him with 
imposition of hands ; and the purification of the 
priests and people, so that their holy places were 
made accessible to them, and they were allowed, 
without fear of the death which had been threat- 
ened, to " draw near" to God. 

"We have already shown that here the holy 
places made with hands, and the "true holy 
places," of which they were the figures, were 
purified and opened, each in the same way, by 
the sprinkling of the blood of the victims — the 
patterns or emblems of things in the heavens, 
by the blood of animals, the heavenly places 
themselves by "better sacrifices," and that the 
argument of the apostle forbids us to suppose 
that he is speaking figuratively. Let us, then, 
merely mark the correspondence of the type 
and antitype in this case, as exhibited by the 



CH. XXI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



453 



apostle. He compares the legal sacrifices and 
that of Christ in the similar purification of the 
respective ayia or sanctuaries to which each had 
relation. The Jewish sanctuary on earth was 
purified, that is, opened and made accessible, 
by the one : the celestial sanctuary, the true and 
everlasting seat of God's presence, by the other. 
Accordingly, in other passages, he pursues the 
parallel still farther, representing Christ as pro- 
curing for men, by his death, a happy admis- 
sion into heaven, as the sin offerings of the law 
obtained for the Jews a safe entrance into the 
tabernacle on earth. " Having, therefore, breth- 
ren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the 
blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which 
he hath consecrated for us through the veil, 
that is to say, his flesh; and having a high 
priest over the house of Grod, let us draw near 
with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, 
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science, and our bodies washed with pure 
water." Thus, also, he tells us that " we are sanc- 
tified through the offering of the body of Jesus 
Christ," and that as the bodies of those animals 
whose blood was carried into the holy of holies 
by the high priest, to make an atonement for 
sin, were burned "without the camp," so also 
Jesus "suffered without the gate," "that he 
might sanctify the people with his own blood." 

The notion that sacrificial terms are applied 
to the death of Christ by rhetorical figure is, 
then, sufficiently refuted by the foregoing con- 
siderations. But it has been argued, that as 
there is in many respects a want of literal con- 
formity between the death of Christ and the 
sacrifices of the law, a considerable license of 
figurative interpretation must be allowed. Great 
confusion of ideas on this subject has resulted 
from not observing a very obvious distinction 
which exists between figurative and analogical 
lauguage. It by no means follows that when 
language cannot be interpreted literally it must 
be taken figuratively, or by way of rhetorical 
allusion. This distinction is well made by a late 
writer. 

"Figurative language," he observes, "does 
not arise from the real nature of the thing to 
which it is transferred, but only from the ima- 
gination of him who transfers it. So, a man 
of courage is figuratively called a lion, not be- 
cause the real nature of a lion belongs to him, 
but because one quality which characterizes this 
animal belongs to him in an eminent degree, 
and the imagination conceives of them as par- 
takers of a common nature, and applies to them 
ono common name. But there is a species of 
language, usually called analogical, which, though 
not strictly proper, is far from being merely 



figurative, the terms being transferred from one 
thing to another, not because the things are 
similar, but because they are in similar relations. 
The term thus transferred is as truly significant 
of the real nature of the thing, in the relation in 
which it stands, as it could be were it the 
primitive and proper word. Thus the term foot 
properly signifies the lower extremity of an ani- 
mal, or that on which it stands ; but, because 
the lower extremity or base of a mountain is to 
the mountain what the foot is to the animal, it is 
therefore called by the same name, and the term 
thus applied is significant of something real — 
something which, if not a foot in strict propriety 
of speech, is nevertheless truly so, considered 
with respect to the circumstance upon which the 
analogy is founded. But this mode of expres- 
sion is more common with respect to our mental 
and intellectual faculties and operations, which 
we are wont to denominate by words borrowed 
from similar functions of the bodily organs and 
corresponding attributes of material things. 
Thus, to see, is properly to acquire impressions of 
sensible objects by the organs of sight; but to 
the mind is also attributed an eye, with which we 
are analogically said to see objects intellectual. 
In like manner, great and little, equal and un- 
equal, smooth and rough, sweet and sour, are 
properly attributes of material substances ; but 
they are analogically ascribed to such as are 
immaterial; for without intending a figure, we 
speak of a great mind, and a little mind ; and the 
natural temper of one man is said to be equal, 
smooth, and sweet, while that of another is called 
unequal, rough, and sour. And if we thus ex- 
press such intellectual things as fall more im- 
mediately under our observation, we cannot 
wonder that things spiritual and Divine, which 
are more removed from our direct inspection, 
should be exhibited to our apprehension in the 
same manner. The conceptions which we thus 
form may be imperfect and inadequate ; but they 
are, nevertheless, just and true ; consequently, 
the language in which they are expressed, al- 
though borrowed, is not merely figurative, but 
is significant of something real in the things con- 
cerned."— Veysies' Bampton Lectures. 

To apply this to the case before us, the blood 
or life of Christ is called our ransom and the 
price of our redemption. Now, admitting that 
these expressions are not to be understood 
literally, does it follow that they contain mere 
figure and allusion ? By no means. They con- 
tain truth and reality. Christ came to redeem 
us from the power of sin ami Satan, by paying 
for our deliverance no less a price than his 
own blood. "In whom we have redemption 
through his blood." " Tho Son of man came 



454 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



to give his life a ransom for many ;" and -we are 
taught, by this representation, that the blood 
of Christ, in the deliverance of sinful man, 
corresponds to a price or ransom in the deliver- 
ance of a captive, and consequently is a price 
or ransom, if not literally, at least really and 
truly. 

When Christ is called ''our passover," the 
same analogical use of terms is manifest, and 
in several other passages which will be familiar 
to the reader ; but we hesitate to apply the 
same rule of interpretation throughout, and to 
say with the author just quoted, and Archbishop 
Magee, who refers to him on this point with 
approbation, that Christ is called a " sin offer- 
ing" and a " sacrifice" analogically. These 
terms, on the contrary, are used properly, and 
must be understood literally. For what was an 
expiatory sacrifice under the law, but the offer- 
ing of the life of an innocent creature in the 
place of the guilty, and that in order to obtain 
his exemption from death ? The death of Christ 
is as literally an offering of himself "the just 
for the unjust," to exempt the latter from death. 
The legal sin offerings cleansed the body and 
qualified for the ceremonial of worship pre- 
scribed by the law; and the blood of Christ as 
truly purifies the conscience and consecrates to 
the spiritual service required by the gospel. 
The circumstances differ, but the things them- 
selves are not so much analogical as identical in 
their nature, though differing in circumstances, 
that is, so far as the legal sacrifices had any 
efficacy per se; but, in another and a higher 
view, the sacrifice of Christ was the only true 
sacrifice, and the Levitical ones were but the ap- 
pointed types of that. If, therefore, in this 
argument, we may refer to the Mosaic sacrifices, 
to fix the sense in which the New Testament 
uses the sacrificial terms in which it speaks of 
the death of Christ, against an objector, yet, in 
fact, the sacrifices of the law are to be inter- 
preted by the sacrifice of Christ, and not the 
latter by them. They are rather analogical with 
it, than it with them. There was a previous 
ordination of pardon through the appointed sac- 
rifice of the Lamb of God, "slain from the 
foundation of the world," to which they all, in 
different degrees, referred, and of which they 
were but the visible and sensible monitors "for 
the time then present." 

As to the objection that the Jewish sacrifices 
had no reference to the expiation of moral trans- 
gression, we observe : 

1. That a distinction is to be made between 
sacrifice as a part of the theo-political law of 
the Jews, and sacrifice as a consuetudinary rite, 
practiced by their fathers, and by them also pre- 



vious to the giving of the law from Mount 
Sinai, and taken up into the Mosaic institute. 
This was continued partly on its original ground, 
and partly, and with additions, as a branch of 
the polity under which the Jews were placed. 
With this rite they were familiar before the law, 
and even before the exodus from Egypt. "Let 
us go," says Moses to Pharaoh, "we pray thee, 
three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice 
unto the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with 
pestilence or with the sword." Here sacrifice is 
spoken of, and that with reference to expiation, 
or the averting of the Divine displeasure. There 
is in this, too, an acknowledgment of offences, 
as the reason of sacrificing ; but these offences 
could not be against the forms and ceremonies 
of an institute which did not then exist, and 
must, therefore, have been moral offences. We 
may add to this, that in the books of Leviticus 
and Exodus, Moses speaks of sacrifices as a pre- 
vious practice, and, in some cases, so far from 
prescribing the act, does no more than regulate 
the mode. "If his offering be a burnt sacrifice 
of the herd, let him offer a male." Had their 
sacrifices, therefore, reference only to cases of 
ceremonial offence, then it would follow that 
they had been deprived of the worship of their 
ancestors, which respected the obtaining of 
the Divine favor in the forgiveness of moral 
offences, and that they obtained, as a substitute, 
a kind of worship which respected only cere- 
monial cleansings, and a ceremonial reconcilia- 
tion. They had this, manifestly, as the type of 
something higher ; and they had also the patri- 
archal rites with renewed sanctions and under 
new regulations ; and thus there was a real ad- 
vance in the spirituality of their worship, while 
it became, at the same time, more ceremonial 
and exact. 

2. That the offerings which were formerly 
prescribed under the law had reference to moral 
transgressions, as well as to external aberrations 
from the purity and exactness of the Levitical 
ritual. 

"Atonement" is said to be made for sins 
committed "against any of the commandments 
of the Lord." It appears, also, that sins of 
"ignorance" included all sins which were not 
ranked in the class of "presumptuous sins," 
or those to which death was inevitably annexed 
by the civil law, and, therefore, must have in- 
cluded many cases of moral transgression. For 
some specific instances of this kind, sin offerings 
were enjoined, such as lying, theft, fraud, extor- 
tion, and perjury. 1 

i Vide Outram, De Sac. ; Hallet's Notes and Discourses ; 
Hammond and Rosenmuller, in Heb. ix.; Richie's Tec. 
Doctrine. 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



455 



3. That if all the sin offerings of the Leviti- 
cal institute had respected legal atonement and 
ceremonial purification, nothing could have been 
collected from that circumstance to invalidate 
the true sacrifice of Christ. It is of the nature 
of a type to be inferior in efficacy to the anti- 
type ; and the Apostle Paul himself argues, 
from the invalidity of Levitical sacrifices to take 
away guilt from the conscience, the superior 
efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. It follows, 
then, that as truly as they were legal atonements, 
so truly was Christ's death a moral atonement : 
as truly as they purified the flesh, so truly did 
his sacrifice purify the conscience. 



CHAPTER XXII. 

REDEMPTION — PRIMITIVE SACRIFICES. 

To the rite of sacrifice before the law, prac- 
ticed in the patriarchal ages, up to the first 
family, it may be proper to give some considera- 
tion, both for the further elucidation of some of 
the topics above stated, and for the purpose of 
exhibiting the harmony of those dispensations 
of religion which were made to fallen man in 
different ages of the world. That the ante- 
Mosaic sacrifices were expiatory, is the first point 
which it is necessary to establish. It is not, in- 
deed, at all essential to the argument to ascend 
higher than the sacrifices of the law, which we 
have already proved to be of that character, and 
by which the expiatory efficacy of the death 
of Christ is represented in the New Testament. 
This, however, was also the character of the 
more ancient rites of the patriarchal Church ; 
and thus we see the same principles of moral 
government which distinguish the Christian and 
Mosaic dispensations, carried still higher as to 
antiquity, even to the family of the first man, 
the first transgressor: "without shedding of 
blood is no remission." 

The proofs that sacrifices of atonement made 
a part of the religious system of the patriarchs 
who lived before the law, are, first, the distribu- 
tion of beasts into clean and unclean, which we 
find prior to the flood of Noah. This is a sin- 
gular distinction, and one which could not then 
have reference to food, since animal food was 
not allowed to man prior to the deluge ; and as 
we know of no other ground for tho distinction, 
except that of sacrifice, it must, therefore, have 
had reference to tho selection of victims to be 
solemnly offered to Cod, as a part of worship, 
and as tho moans of drawing near to him by ex- 
piatory rites for tho forgiveness of sins. Some, 



it is true, have regarded this distinction of clean 
and unclean beasts as used by Moses by way of 
prolepsis, or anticipation — a notion which, if it 
could not be refuted by the context, would be 
perfectly arbitrary. But not only are the beasts, 
which Noah was to receive into the ark, spoken 
of as clean and unclean ; but, in the command 
to take them into the ark, a difference is made 
in the number to be preserved, the former being 
to be received by sevens, and the latter by two 
of a kind. This shows that this distinction 
among beasts had been established in the time 
of Noah, and thus the assumption of a prolepsis 
is refuted. In the law of Moses a similar dis- 
tinction is made ; but the only reasons given for 
it are two : in this manner, those victims which 
God would allow to be used for piacular pur- 
poses were marked out ; and by this distinction 
those animals were designated which were per- 
mitted for food. The former only can, there- 
fore, be considered as the ground of this dis- 
tinction among the antediluvians ; for the critical 
attempts which have been made to show that 
animals were allowed to man for food previous 
to the flood have wholly failed. 

A second argument is furnished by the pro- 
hibition of blood for food, after animals had 
been granted to man for his sustenance along 
with the "herb of the field." This prohibition 
is repeated by Moses to the Israelites, with this 
explanation, "I have given it upon the altar, to 
make an atonement for your souls." From this 
"additional reason," as it has been called, it 
has been argued that the doctrine of the 
atoning power of blood was new, and was then 
for the first time announced by Moses, or the 
same reason for the prohibition would have been 
given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That 
unless the same reason be supposed as the 
ground of the prohibition of blood to Noah, as 
that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at 
all can be conceived for this restraint being put 
upon the appetite of mankind from Noah to 
Moses ; and yet we have a prohibition of a most 
solemn kind, which in itself could have no 
reason enjoined, without any external reason be- 
ing either given or conceivable. 2. That it is a 
mistake to suppose that the declaration of Moses 
to the Jews, that God had " given them the 
blood for an atonement," is an additional reason 
for the interdict, not to be found in the original 
prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Lev. 
xvii. is, "And thou shalt say to them, Whatso- 
ever man there bo of the house ol' Israel, or of the 
strangers that sojourn among you, thai eatetli any 
manner of blood, I will even set my tare against 
that soul that eateth blood, and 1 will out him 
off from among his people; FOB the LIFE of the 



456 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



flesh is in the blood ; and I have given it to you 
upon the altar, to make an atonement for your 
souls; for it is the blood (or life) that maketh 
an atonement for the soul." The great reason, 
then, of the prohibition of blood is, that it is the 
life ; and what follows respecting atonement is 
exegetical of this reason : the life is in the blood, 
and the blood or life is given as an atonement. 
Now, by turning to the original prohibition in 
Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason 
is given : "But the flesh with the blood, which 
is the life thereof, shall ye not eat." The rea- 
son, then, being the same, the question is, 
whether the exegesis added by Moses must not 
necessarily be understood in the general reason 
given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is pro- 
hibited for this reason, that it is the life; and 
Moses adds, that it is "the blood," or life, 
"which makes atonement." Let anyone attempt 
to discover any reason for the prohibition of 
blood to Noah in the mere circumstance that it 
is " the life," and he will find it impossible. It 
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except 
that as it was life substituted for life, the life of 
the animal in sacrifice for the life of man, and 
that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, 
too, in which Moses introduces the subject, is 
indicative that, though he was renewing a pro- 
hibition, he was not publishing a "new doc- 
trine :" he does not teach his people that God 
had then given, or appointed, blood to make 
atonement; but he prohibits them from eating 
it, because he had made this appointment, with- 
out reference to time, and as a subject with 
which they were familiar. Because the blood 
was the life, it was sprinkled upon and poured 
out at the altar ; and we have in the sacrifice of 
the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, 
a sufficient proof that, before the giving of the 
law, not only was blood not eaten, but was ap- 
propriated to a sacred, sacrificial purpose. Nor 
was this confined to the Jews : it was customary 
with the Romans and Greeks, who, in like man- 
ner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of 
victims at their altars — a rite derived, probably, 
from the Egyptians, as they derived it, not from 
Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion, 
indeed, that the blood of the victims was pecu- 
liarly sacred to the gods, is impressed upon all 
ancient pagan mythology. 

Thirdly, the sacrifices of the patriarchs were 
those of animal victims, and their use was to 
avert the displeasure of God from sinning men. 
Thus in the case of Job, who, if it could be 
proved that he did not live before the law, was, 
at least, not under the law, and in whose coun- 
try the true patriarchal theology was in force, 
the prescribed burnt offering was for the avert- 



[PART II. 

ing of the "wrath" of God, which was kindled 
against Eliphaz and his two friends, "lest," it is 
added, " I deal with you after your folly." The 
doctrine of expiation could not, therefore, be 
more explicitly declared. The burnt offerings 
of Noah, also, after he left the ark, served to 
avert the "cursing of the ground any more for 
man's sake," that is, for man's sin, and the 
" smiting any more every thing living." In like 
manner, the end of Abel's offering was pardon 
and acceptance with God, and by it these were 
attained, for "he obtained witness that he was 
righteous." But as this is the first sacrifice which 
we have on record, and has given rise to some 
controversy, it may be considered more largely : 
at present, however, the only question is its ex- 
piatory character. 

As to the matter of the sacrifice, it was an 
animal offering. "Cain brought of the fruit 
of the ground, and Abel he also brought of the 
firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof;" 
or, more literally, "the fat of them," that is, 
according to the Hebrew idiom, the fattest or 
best of his flock. Le Clerc and Grotius would 
understand Abel to have offered the wool and 
milk of his flock, which interpretation, if no 
critical difficulty opposed it, would be rendered 
violently improbable by the circumstance that 
neither wool nor milk is ever mentioned in Scrip- 
ture as fit oblations to God. But to translate 
the word rendered firstlings by best and finest, 
and then to suppose an ellipsis, and supply it 
with wool, is wholly arbitrary, and contradicted 
by the import of the word itself. But, as Dr. 
Kennicott remarks, the matter is set at rest by 
the context; "for, if it be allowed by all that 
Cain's bringing of the fruit of the ground means 
his bringing the fruit (itself) of the ground, then 
Abel's bringing of the firstlings of his flock must, 
likewise, mean his bringing the firstlings of his 
flock " (themselves. ) — Two Dissertations. See also 
Magee's Discourses. 

This is further supported by the import of 
the phrase irleiova dvoiav, used by the apostle 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when speaking of 
the sacrifice of Abel. Our translators have ren- 
dered it, "a more excellent sacrifice." Wickliffe 
translates it, as Archbishop Magee observes, 
uncouthly, but in the full sense of the original, 
"a much more sacrifice;" and the controversy 
which has been had on this point is, whether 
this epithet of "much more," or "fuller," re- 
fers to quantity or quality ; whether it is to be 
understood in the sense of a more abundant, or of 
a better, a more excellent sacrifice. Dr. Kenni- 
cott takes it in the sense of measure and quan- 
tity, as well as quality, and supposes that Abel 
brought a double offering of the firstlings of his 



ch. xxn.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



457 



flock, and of the fruit of the ground also. His 
criticism has been very satisfactorily refuted by 
Archbishop Magee — [Discourses on the Atone- 
ment;) and Mr. Davison, who has "written an 
acute work in reply to those parts of that learned 
prelate's work on the atonement which relate to 
the Divine origin of the primitive sacrifices, 
has attempted no answer to this criticism, and 
only observes that "the more abundant sacrifice 
is the more probable signification of the pas- 
sage, because it is the more natural force of the 
term Trleiova when applied to a subject, as 
-d-voiav, capable of measure and quantity." This 
is but assumption; and we read the term in 
other passages of Scripture, (as in Matt. vi. 25, 
"Is not the life more than meat, and the body 
than raiment?") where the idea of quantity is 
necessarily excluded, and that of superiority and 
excellence of quality is as necessarily intended. 
But why is this stress laid on quantity? Are 
we to admit the strange principle that an offer- 
ing is acceptable to God because of its quantity 
alone, and that the quantity of sacrifice, when 
even no measure has been prescribed by any law 
of God, has an absolute connection with the 
state of the heart of an offerer ? Frequency or 
non-frequency of offering might have some claim 
to be considered as this indication; but, cer- 
tainly, the quantity of gifts, where, according to 
the opinion of those generally who adopt this 
view, sacrifices had not yet been subjected to 
express regulation, would be a very imperfect 
indication. If the quantity of a sacrifice could 
at all indicate, under such circumstances, any 
moral quality, that quality would be gratitude ; 
but then we must suppose Abel's offering to 
have been eucharistic. Here, however, the sac- 
rifice of Abel was that of animal victims, and it 
was indicative of faith — a quality not to be made 
manifest by the quantity of an offering made, 
for the one has no relation to the other ; and 
the sacrifice itself was, as we shall see, of a 
strictly expiatory character. 

This will more fully appear, if we look at the 
import of the words of the apostle in some views 
which have not always been brought fully out in 
what has been more recently written on the sub- 
ject. " By faith Abel offered unto God a more 
excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he ob- 
tained witness that he was righteous, God 
testifying of his gifts ; and by it, he, being dead, 
yet speaketh." 

What is the meaning of the apostle, when he 
says that it was witnessed or testified to Abel 
that he was righteous ? His doctrine is, that men 
are sinners ; that all, consequently, need par- 
don ; and to be declared, witnessed, or accounted 
righteous, are, according to his style of writing, 



the same as to be justified, pardoned, and dealt 
with as righteous. Thus, he argues that "Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was counted to him 
for righteousness" — " that faith was reckoned to 
Abraham for righteousness" — "that he received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal," a visible, con- 
firmatory, declaratory, and witnessing mark, "of 
the righteousness which he had by faith." In 
these cases we have a similarity so striking, that 
they can scarcely fail to explain each other. In 
both, sinful men are placed in the condition of 
righteous men ; the instrument, in both cases, is 
faith ; and the transaction is, in both cases also, 
publicly and sensibly witnessed: as to Abraham, 
by the sign of circumcision ; as to Abel, by a 
visible acceptance of his sacrifice, and the rejec- 
tion of that of Cain. 

But it is said, " St. Paul affirms that Abel, by 
the acceptance of his sacrifice, gained the testi- 
mony of God that he was a righteous man. He 
affirms, therefore, that it was his personal habit 
of righteousness to which God vouchsafed the 
testimony of his approbation by that acceptance 
of his offering. The antecedent faith in God, 
which produced that habit of a religious life, 
commended his sacrifice, and the Divine testi- 
mony was not to the specific form of his oblations, 
but to his actual righteousness." (Davison's In- 
quiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitive Sacri- 
fice.) 

The objections to this view of the matter are 
many. 

1. It leaves out entirely all consideration of the 
difference between the sacrifice of Abel and that 
of Cain, and places the reason of the acceptance 
of one and the rejection of the other wholly in 
the moral character of the offerers ; whereas St. 
Paul most unequivocally places the acceptance 
of Abel's offering upon its nature and the prin- 
ciple of faith which originated it. For, whether 
we translate the phrase above referred to, "a 
more excellent sacrifice," or "a more abundant 
sacrifice," it is put in contrast with the offering 
of Cain, and its peculiar nature cannot be left 
out of the account. By Mr. Davison's interpre- 
tation, the designation given to Abel's offering 
by the apostle is entirely overlooked. 

2. The "faith" of Abel, in this transaction, is 
also passed over as a consideration in the accept- 
ance of his sacrifice. It is, indeed, brought in 
as "an antecedent faith, which produced the habit 
of a religious life," and thus mediately "com- 
mended the sacrifice ;" but, in fact, on this 
ground any other influential grace or principle 
might be said to have commended his sacrifice, 
as well as faith : any thing whioh tended to pro- 
duce "the habit of a religions life." his fear ol' 
God, his lovo of God, as effectually as his faith 



458 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



in God. There is, then, this manifest difference 
between this representation of the case and that 
which is given by St. Paul, that the one makes 
"the habit of a religious life" the immediate, and 
faith but the remote reason of the acceptableness 
of Abel : s gifts ; while the other assigns a direct 
efficacy to the faith of Abel, and the kind of sac- 
rifice by which that faith was expressed, and 
of which it was the immediate result. 

3. In this chapter the apostle is not speaking 
of faith under the view of its tendency to induce 
a holy life; but of faith as producing certain 
acts of very various kinds, which, being followed 
by manifest tokens of the Divine favor, showed 
how acceptable faith is to God, or how it "pleases 
him," according to his own position laid down in 
the commencement of the chapter — ""Without 
faith it is impossible to please God." Abel had 
faith, and he expressed that faith by the kind of 
sacrifice he offered: it was in this way that his 
faith "pleased God:" it pleased him as a prin- 
ciple, and by the act to which it led, and that 
act was the offering of a sacrifice to God differ- 
ent from that of Cain. Cain had not this faith, 
whatever might be its object; and Cain accord- 
ingly did not bring an offering to which God had 
"respect." That which vitiated the offering of 
Cain was the want of this faith, for his offering 
was not significant of faith : that which "pleased 
God," in the case of Abel, was his faith, and he 
had "respect" to his offering, because it was the 
expression of that faith, and upon his faith so 
expressing itself, God witnessed to bim < ; that he 
was righteous." 

So, certainly, do the words of St. Paul, when 
commenting upon this transaction, establish it 
against the author above quoted, that Abel's 
sacrifice was accepted because of its immediate 
connection with his faith, for by faith he is said 
to have offered it ; and all that, whatever it might 
be, which made Abel's offering differ from that 
of Cain, whether abundance, or kind, or both, was 
the result of this faith. So clearly, also, is it 
laid down by the apostle that Abel was witnessed 
to be "'righteous," not with reference to any 
previous "habit of a religious life," but with 
reference to his faith ; and not to his faith as 
leading to personal righteousness, but to his faith 
as expressing itself by his offering " a more ex- 
cellent sacrifice." 

Mr. Davison, in support of his opinion, adopts 
the argument of many before him, that "the 
rest of Scripture speaks to Abel's personal right- 
eousness. Thus in St. John's distinction between 
Cain and Abel, ' Wherefore slew he him? Because 
his own works were evil, and his brother's right- 
eous.' Thus in the remonstrance of God with 



; Cain, that remonstrance with Cain's envy for the 
acceptance of Abel's offering is directed, not to 
the mode of their sacrifice, but to the good and 
evil doings of their respective lives — ' If thou 
doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou 
: doest not well, sin lieth at the door.' " (Inquiry, 
' etc.) 

With respect to the words in St. John, they 
I may be allowed to refer to Abel's "personal 
righteousness," without affecting the statement 
of St. Paul in the least. It would be a bad rule 
of criticism fully to explain the comments of one 
sacred writer upon a transaction, the principle 
! and nature of which he explains professedly by 
I the remark of another, when the subject is in- 
; troduced only allusively and incidentally. St. 
John's words must not here be brought in to 
qualify St. Paul's exposition ; but St. Paul's ex- 
position to complete the incidental allusion of 
St. John. Both apostles agreed that no man was 
righteous personally till he was made righteous 
by forgiveness — accounted and witnessed right- 
eous by faith — and both agree that from that 
follows a personal righteousness. If St. John, 
\ then, refers to Abel's personal righteousness, he 
refers to it as flowing from his justification and 
acceptance with God, and by that personal right- 
eousness the "wrath" of Cain, which was first 
excited by the rejection of his sacrifice, was 
probably ripened into the "hatred" which led on 
his fratricide ; for it does not appear that he 
committed that act immediately upon the place 
of sacrifice, but at some subsequent period ; and, 
certainly, it was not the antecedent holy life of 
, Abel which first produced Cain's displeasure 
against his brother, for this is expressly attri- 
buted to the transactions of the day in which 
each brought his offering to the Lord. St. John's 
reference to Abel's personal righteousness does 
not therefore exclude a reference also, and even 
primarily, to his faith as its instrumental cause, 
and the source of its support and nourish- 
ment; and we may add that it is St. John's 
rule, and must be the rule of every New Tes- 
ment writer, to regard a man's submission to 
: or rejection of God's method of saving men by 
faith, as the best evidence of personal right- 
eousness, or the contrary. As to Genesis iv. 7. 
, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? 
; and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door," 
in order to show that it cannot be proved from 
this passage that Abel's offering was accepted 
because of his personal righteousness, it is not 
necessary to avail ourselves of Lightfoot's view 
of it, who takes "sin" to be the ellipsis of ran 
offering, as in many places of Scripture. For 
and against this rendering much ingenious criti- 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



459 



cism has been employed, for "which the critics 
must be consulted. 1 The interpretation which 
supposes Cain to be referred to a sin offering, 
an animal victim "lying at the door," is, at 
best, doubtful ; but if this be conceded, the 
argument framed upon the declaration to Cain, 
"If thou doest -well, shalt not thou be ac- 
cepted," as though the reason of the accept- 
ance of Abel's sacrifice was in "well doing" in 
the moral sense only, is wholly groundless, since 
the apostle so explicitly refers the reason of 
the acceptance of his sacrifice to his faith, as 
before established. It is enough to show that 
there is nothing in these words to contradict 
this, even if we take them in the most obvious 
sense, and omit the consideration that the He- 
brew text has in this place been disturbed, of 
which there are strong indications. The pas- 
sage may be taken in two views. Either to "do 
well" may mean to do as Abel had done, viz., to 
repent and bring those sacrifices which should 
express his faith in God's appointed method of 
pardoning and accepting men, thus submitting 
himself wholly to God — and then it is a merciful 
intimation that Cain's rejection was not final, 
but that it depended upon himself whether he 
would seek God in sincerity and truth — or the 
words may be considered as a declaration of the 
principles of God's righteous government over 
men: "If thou doest well," if thou art right- 
eous and unsinning, thou shalt be accepted as 
such, without sacrifice; "but if thou doest 
not well, sin lieth at the door," and is charge- 
able upon thee with its consequence ; thus, after 
declaring his moral condition, leaving it to him- 
self to seek for pardon in the method esta- 
blished in the first family, and which Cain must 
be supposed to have known as well as Abel, or, 
otherwise, we must suppose that they had re- 
ceived no religious instruction at all from Adam 
their father. To the former view of the sense 
of the passage it cannot be objected that to offer 
proper sacrifices from a right principle cannot 
be called, in the common and large sense, " to do 
well" for even "to believe" is called "a work" 
by our Saviour ; and the sacrifice of Abel was, 
moreover, an act, or a series of acts, which were 
,the expressions of his faith, and, therefore, 
might be called a doing well, without any vio- 
lence. Agreeably to this, the whole course of 
the submission of the Jews to the laws concern- 
ing their sacrifices, is often, in Scripture, de- 
signated by the terms obedience, and ivays, and 
doings. The second interpretation corresponds 

1 Nearly all that can be Bald on this Interpretation will 
'"' found mi Magee'a Discourses on the Atonement, and 
Davison's Reply to his criticism, In his Enquiry into the 
Origin of Primitive Sucriilco. 



to the great axiom of moral government alluded 
to by St. Paul, "This do, and thou shalt live;" 
which is so far from excluding the doctrine 
of justification by faith, that it is the ground on 
which he argues it, inasmuch as it shuts out the 
justification of men by law when it has once 
been violated. 

If, then, it has been established that the faith 
of Abel had an immediate connection with his 
sacrifice ; and both with his being accepted as 
righteous, that is, justified, in St. Paul's use of 
the term, to what had his faith respect ? The 
particular object of the faith of the elders, cele- 
brated in Hebrews xi., is to be deduced from the 
circumstances adduced as illustrative of the 
existence and operation of this great principle, 
and by which it manifested itself. Let us illus- 
trate this, and then ascertain the objects of 
Abel's faith also from the manner of its manifest- 
ation, from the acts in which it embodied and 
rendered itself conspicuous. 

Faith is, in this chapter, taken in the sense 
of affiance in God, and, as such, it can only be 
exercised toward God as to all particular acts, 
in those respects, in which we have some autho- 
rity to confide in him. This supposes revelation, 
and, in particular, some promise or declaration 
on his part, as the warrant for every act of 
affiance. When, therefore, it is said that "by 
faith Enoch was translated, that he should not 
see death," it must be supposed that he had 
some promise or intimation to this effect, on 
which, improbable as the event was, he nobly 
relied, and in the result God honored his faith 
before all men. The faith of Noah had imme- 
diate respect to the threatened flood, and the 
promise of God to preserve him in the ark which 
he was commanded to prepare. The faith of 
Abraham had different objects. In one of the 
instances which this chapter records, it re- 
spected the promise of the land of Canaan to 
his posterity, and also the promise of the heaven- 
ly inheritance, of which that was the type ; 
which faith he publicly manifested by "sojourn- 
ing in the land of promise, as in a strange coun- 
try," and " dwelling in tabernacles," rather 
than taking up a permanent residence in any of 
its cities, because "he looked for a city which 
hath foundations." In the case of the offering 
of Isaac, he believed that God would raise his 
immolated son from tho dead ; and the ground 
of his faith is stated, in verso 18, to be the pro- 
mise, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called.'' The 
faith of Sarah respected the promise of issue — 
"she judged him faithful who had promised*" 
" By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau con- 
cerning things to oome;" whioh faith had for its 
object tho revelation made to him by God as to 



460 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II, 



the future lot of the posterity of his two sons. 
The chapter is filled with other instances ex- 
pressed or implied ; and from the whole, as well 
as from the nature of the thing, it will appear 
that when the apostle speaks of the faith of the 
elders in its particular acts, he represents it as 
having respect to some promise, declaration, or 
revelation of God. 

This revelation was necessarily antecedent to 
the faith ; hut it is also to be observed, that the 
acts by which the faith was represented, when- 
ever it was represented by particular acts, and 
when the case admitted it, had a natural and 
striking conformity and correspondence to the 
previous revelation. So Noah built the ark, 
which indicated that he had heard the threat of 
the world's destruction by water, and had re- 
ceived the promise of his own and family's pre- 
servation, as well as that of a selection of the 
beasts of the earth : to all which the means of 
preservation, by which his faith was represented, 
and which it led him to adopt, corresponded. 
When Abraham went into Canaan, at the com- 
mand of God, and upon the promise that that 
country should become the inheritance of his 
descendants, he showed his faith by taking pos- 
session of it for them in anticipation, and his 
residence there indicated the kind of promise 
which he had received. When he lived in that 
promised land in tents, though opulent enough 
to have established himself in a more settled 
state, the very manner in which his faith ex- 
pressed itself showed that he had received the 
promise of a "better country," which made him 
willing to be a. " stranger and wanderer on 
earth;" for "they that say such things," says 
the apostle, namely, that they are strangers and 
pilgrims, "confessing" it by these significant 
acts, "declare plainly that they seek a coun- 
try," "that is, a heavenly." Thus, also ; when 
Moses's faith expressed itself in his refusing to 
be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, this 
also clearly indicated that he had received the 
promise of something higher and more excel- 
lent than " the riches of Egypt," which he 
renounced, even " the recompense of the re- 
ward," to which, we are told, "he had respect." 
When his faith manifested itself by his forsaking 
Egypt at the head of his people, "not fearing 
the wrath of the king," this indicated that he 
had received a promise of protection and suc- 
cess, and he therefore "endured as seeing Him 
who is invisible." 

If, then, all these instances show that when 
the faith which the apostle commends exhibits 
itself in some particular act, that act has a cor- 
respondency to the previous promise of revela- 
tion, which faith must have for its ground and 



| reason, then are we constrained to interpret the 
acts of Abel's faith so as to make them also 
correspond with some antecedent revelation ; or, 
rather, we must suppose that the antecedent re- 
velation, though not expressly stated, (which is 
also the case in several other of the instances 
which are given in the chapter,) must have cor- 
responded with them. His faith had respect 
to some previous revelation, and the nature 
of the revelation is to be collected from the 
significant manner in which he declared his faith 
in it. 

Now, that which Abel did, "by faith," was, 
if considered generally, to perform an act of 
solemn worship, in the confidence that it would 
be acceptable to God. This supposes a revela- 
tion, immediate or by tradition, that such acts 
of worship were acceptable to God, or his faith 
could have had no warrant, and would not have 
been faith, but fancy. But the case must be 
considered more particularly. His faith led him 
to offer "a more excellent sacrifice" than that 
of Cain; but this as necessarily implies that 
there was some antecedent revelation, to which 
his faith, as thus expressed, had respect, and on 
which that peculiarity of his offering, which dis- 
tinguished it from the offering of Cain, was 
founded : a revelation which indicated that the 
way in which God would be approached accept- 
ably, in solemn worship, was by animal sacri- 
fices. Without this, too, the faith to which his 
offering, which was an offering of the firstlings 
of his flock, had a special fitness and adaptation, 
could have no warrant in Divine authority. 
But this revelation must have included, in order 
to its being the ground of faith, as "the sub- 
stance of things hoped for," a promise of a 
benefit to be conferred, in which promise Abel 
might confide. But if so, then this promise must 
have been connected, not with the worship of 
God in general, or performed in any way what- 
ever indifferently, but with his worship by 
animal oblations ; for it was in this way that 
the faith of Abel indicated itself, specially and 
distinctively. The antecedent revelation was, 
therefore, a promise of a benefit to be con- 
ferred, by means of animal sacrifice; and we 
are taught what this benefit was, by that which 
was actually received by the offerer — "he ob- 
tained witness that he was righteous ;" which, 
if the notion of his antecedent righteousness 
has been refuted, must be interpreted in the 
sense of a declaration of his personal justifica- 
tion, and acceptance as righteous, upon for- 
giveness of his sins. The reason of Abel's ac- 
ceptance and of Cain's rejection is hereby made 
manifest : the one, in seeking the Divine favor, 
conformed to his established and appointed 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



461 



method of being approached by guilty men; 
and the other not only neglected this, but pro- 
fanely and presumptuously substituted his own 
inventions. 

It is impossible, then, to allow the act of Abel, 
in this instance, to have been an act of faith, 
without allowing that it had respect to a previous 
and appropriate revelation: a revelation which 
agreed to all the parts of that sacrificial action 
by which he expressed his faith in it. Had 
Abel's sacrifice been eucharistic merely, it would 
have expressed gratitude, but not faith; or if 
faith in the general sense of confidence in God 
that he would receive an act of grateful wor- 
ship, and reward the worshipper, it did not more 
express faith than the offering of Cain, who 
surely believed these two points, or he would 
not have brought an offering of any kind. The 
offering of Abel expressed a faith which Cain 
had not, and the doctrinal principles which 
Abel's faith respected were such as his sacri- 
fice visibly embodied. If it was not, then, a 
eucharistic sacrifice, it was an expiatory one ; 
and, in fact, it is only in a sacrifice of this kind 
that it is possible to see that faith exhibited 
which Abel had, and Cain had not. By subse- 
quent sacrifices of expiation, then, is this early 
expiatory offering to be explained, and from 
these it will be obvious to what doctrines and 
principles of an antecedent revelation the faith 
of Abel had respect, and which his sacrifice, the 
exhibition of his faith, proclaimed: confession 
of the fact of being a sinner — acknowledgment 
of the demerit and penalty of sin and death — 
submission to an appointed mode of expiation, 
animal sacrifice offered vicariously, but, in itself, 
a mere type of a better sacrifice, "the seed of 
the woman," appointed to be offered at some 
future period — the efficacy of this appointed 
method of expiation to obtain forgiveness and to 
admit the guilty into the Divine favor. 

For these reasons, we think that the conclu- 
sion of many of our ancient divines, so ad- 
mirably embodied in the following words of 
Archbishop Magee, is not too strong, but is 
fully supported by the argument of the case, as 
founded upon the brief but very explicit decla- 
rations of the history of the transaction in Gene- 
sis, and by the comment upon it in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. 

"Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, 
and in obedience to his command, offered that 
sacrifice which had been enjoined as the re- 
ligious expression of his faith ; while Cain, dis- 
regarding the gracious assurances that had been 
vouchsafed, or at least disdaining to adopt the 
prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, pos- 
sibly as not appearing to his reason to possess 



any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had 
sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty in ac- 
knowledging the general superintendence of 
God, and expressing his gratitude to the Supreme 
Benefactor, by presenting some of those good 
things, which he thereby confessed to have been 
derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the 
first-born of the fall, exhibits the first fruits of 
his parents' disobedience, in the arrogance and 
self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of 
revelation, because they fell not within its ap- 
prehension of right. He takes the first place 
in the annals of Deism, and displays, in his proud 
rejection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same 
spirit which, in later days, has actuated his 
enlightened followers in rejecting the sacrifice of 
Christ." 

If it should be asked, what evidence we have 
from Scripture that such an antecedent reve- 
lation as that to which we have said Abel's faith 
must have had respect was made, the reply is, 
that if this rested only upon the necessary in- 
ferences which, in all fairness and consistency 
of interpretation, we must draw from the cir- 
cumstances of the transaction, when combined 
with the apostle's interpretation of it, the ground 
would be strong enough to enable us to defend 
it against both the attacks of Socinians, and of 
those orthodox divines who, like Mr. Davison, 
would wrest it from us, as an unnecessary post 
to be taken in the combat with the impugners of 
the Christian doctrine of atonement, or one which 
is rather injurious than otherwise to the effi- 
ciency of the more direct argument. "Such 
expositions," says Mr. Davison, " do evil and 
disservice to truth : they bring in a wrong prin- 
ciple : they enforce a comment without a text. 
Such a principle is, undoubtedly, wrong, and 
has been the source of much religious specula- 
tion." This we grant, and feel how important 
the caution is. But it does not here apply. It 
is not enough to say that "the text" is not in 
the "Mosaic history;" we must prove that it is 
not in the New Testament, or necessarily im- 
plied in its comments upon and inferences from 
Old Testament facts and relations. The "text" 
itself, supposed to be wanting, may be there, 
and even "the comment" of an inspired writer 
often supplies the text, and his reasoning the 
premises wanting, in so many words, in the 
brief and veiled narrative of Moses. Au unin- 
spired comment, we grant, has not this preroga- 
tive; but an inspired one has, which is an 
important consideration, not to be overlooked. 
When we say that the manna which fell in the 
wilderness represented the supply of the spirit- 
ual Israel with the true bread which oomea 
down from heaven, Mr. Davison might reply, 



462 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



This is "the comment;" but where is "the 
text?" We acknowledge that the text upon 
which this comment is hung, is not in the his- 
tory of Moses ; but the authority of this com- 
ment, and, if we may so speak, an implied 
"text" itself, is to be found in the words of our 
Lord, who calls himself "that bread;" and in 
the words of St. Paul, who terms the manna 
the "spiritual" or typical meat. If we allege 
that the "hock," which when smitten poured 
forth its stream to refresh the fainting Israelites, 
was a figure of Christ, it might, in like manner, 
be urged that "the text" is wanting, and, cer- 
tainly, we should not gather that view from the 
history of Moses; yet "the comment" is not 
ours, but that of the apostle, who says, "that 
Rock was Christ," which can only be understood 
as asserting that it was an instituted and ap- 
pointed type of Christ. Where we have no in- 
timations of such adumbrations in the persons 
and transactions of the Old Testament, we are 
not at liberty to invent them, nor can we justly 
carry them beyond what is expressed by our in- 
spired authority, or naturally and fairly inferred 
to be from it. On the other hand, we are 
bound not to interpret the Old Testament with- 
out reference to the New ; and not to disregard 
that light which the perfect revelation affords, 
not only by its direct effulgence, but by its re- 
flections upon the history of our redemption, up 
to the earliest ages. 

If it be argued, from the silence of the Mosaic 
history, that such types and allusions were not 
understood as such by the persons among whom 
they were first instituted, the answer is, 1. That 
though they should not be supposed capable of 
understanding them as clearly as we do, yet it 
must be supposed that the spiritual among them 
had their knowledge and faith greatly assisted 
by them, and that they were among those " won- 
drous things of the law," which were, in some 
measure, revealed to those who prayed, with 
David,. that their eyes might be opened "to be- 
hold them;" or otherwise they were totally with- 
out religious use during all the ages previous to 
Christianity, and we must come to the conclusion 
that the whole system of types was without edifi- 
cation to thfe Jews, and are instructive only to us. 
.If we conclude thus as to types, we may come to 
the same conclusion as to the prophecies of Mes- 
siah, to the spiritual meaning and real applica- 
tion of many of which there appears to be as 
little indication of a key as to the types. But 
this cannot be affirmed, for St. Peter tells us 
that of this "salvation the prophets searched 
diligently who prophesied of the grace that 
should come unto you ; searching what or what 
manner of time the Spirit which was in them did 



[PART II. 

signify, when it testified beforehand the suffer- 
ings of Christ and the glory that should follow." 
The prophecies could, probably, be but dimly in- 
terpreted ; but something was known of their 
general meaning, something important was ob- 
tained by " searching" to reward the search into 
their import. The same discovery of the general 
import and bearing of the types, must also have 
rewarded a search equally eager and pious. If 
this is not allowed, then they were not types to 
the ancient Church — a position which is contra- 
dicted by St. Paul, who declares, as to one in- 
stance, which may serve for the rest, namely, 
the entering of " the high priest alone once every 
year" into the inner tabernacle, that by this " the 
Holy Ghost signified that the way into the holiest 
was not yet made manifest," and that the taber- 
nacle itself, including of course its services, 
"was a, figure for the time then present, in or 
during which gifts and sacrifices were offered." 

But, 2. We have, in one of the instances before 
adverted to, in Hebrews xi., a direct proof of a 
distinct revelation, which is nowhere recorded in 
the Mosaic history separate from the temporal 
promise in which it appears to have been in- 
volved. By faith, Abraham, having received the 
promise of Canaan as "a place which he should 
afterward receive for an inheritance," went to 
sojourn there ; but by faith also he sojourned in 
this land of promise as a stranger, dwelling in 
tents, "for he looked for a city which hath foun- 
dations," for the "heavenly state," and by that 
act he, and Isaac, and Jacob, " the heirs with him 
of the same promise," declared plainly that they 
"desired a better country, that is, a heavenly." 
Of this better country they then received a pro- 
mise, which promise is not distinctly recorded 
in the history of Moses ; and it must, therefore, 
have been either included in the promise of Ca- 
naan, which was made to them and their de- 
scendants, as a type, an understood type, of the 
eternal and heavenly rest — which is agreeable to 
the allusions of St. Paul in other parts of the 
epistle — or else it was matter of separate and 
unrecorded revelation. In either view the his- 
tory of Moses is silent, and yet we are com- 
pelled, by the comment of the apostle, and in 
opposition to the argument which Mr. Davison 
and others found upon that silence, to allow either 
a collateral revelation, separate from the promise 
of Canaan, or that that promise itself had a mys- 
tic sense which became the object of their faith; 
and thus the inspired comment of the apostle 
supplies a text wanting in the history, or an en- 
larged interpretation of that which is found in 
it. 

With this case of Abraham, Mr. Davison is 
evidently perplexed, and feels how forcibly it 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



463 






bears against his own rules of interpreting the 
Mosaic history of the religion of those early- 
ages. He justly contends, against Grotius and 
Le Clerc, that the object of the faith recorded in 
Hebrews xi. was not always a temporal one. 
But, then, he proposes to show " how God, with- 
out having granted to those patriarchs the ex- 
plicit revelation of an eternal heavenly state, a re- 
velation which is nowhere exhibited in the Pen- 
tateuch, trained them to the aim and implicit 
persuasion of that eternal state by large and 
indefinite promises of being < their God' and ' their 
great reward' — promises to which the present 
life, as to them, furnished no adequate comple- 
tion." Thus then, we are to conclude, that the 
heavenly state to which these patriarchs looked, 
was a matter of entire inference from the pro- 
mise that God would be " their God and their 
reward," and from the consideration that nothing 
had occurred to them, in this present life, to be 
adequate to these promises. To the latter we 
may reply that, if this were the only ground of 
their faith, they could not have made the infer- 
ence till the close of life ; for how could they 
know that something adequate to these promises, 
if not previously explained to refer chiefly to the 
future state, might not yet, though after much 
delay, occur to them ? But they had this faith 
from the very giving of the promises, and, there- 
fore, it was not left to future inference from cir- 
cumstances. With respect to the former, that 
they inferred that there was a heavenly state, 
from the promise to Abraham, "I will be thy 
God," when no previous " explicit revelation" of 
a future state was made, it not only supposes 
that the patriarchs had no revelation at all of a 
future life, no knowledge of the soul's immor- 
tality, or of a general judgment, of which, in- 
deed, "Enoch prophesied," but it is inconsistent 
with the public and expressive action, (an action, 
probably, intended to be instructive as a sym- 
bolical one to all with whom Abraham was con- 
nected in Canaan,) that he " dwelt in tents," in 
order "to declare plainly that he sought a better 
country." This, surely, was not an action to be 
founded upon a probable, but still uncertain in- 
ference from the unexplained general promise, 
"I will be thy God," but one which was suited 
only to express a firm faith in an explicit reve- 
lation and a particular promise. 

But the whole of this theory is swept away 
entirely by the declaration of the apostle, " These 
all died in faith, not having received the pro- 
mises," that is, the things promised; "but having 
seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, 
and embraced them, and confessed that they 
wero strangers and pilgrims on the earth :" stran- 
gers, not at home — pilgrims, journeying to it. 



Now this home, this better country which they 
sought, the apostle here expressly says was not 
to them matter of inference, but the subject of 
" promises," in the faith of which they both lived 
and died. 

In the case of Abel's offering, as in those just 
given, the inspired comment of the apostle sup- 
plies "the text" to the history; or, in other 
words, it so illustrates and enlarges our know- 
ledge of the transaction in its principles and an- 
tecedent circumstances, that we are bound to 
understand it not as persons who have not this 
additional information, or those who choose to 
disregard it, but as it is explained upon authority 
not to be questioned. Abel, says the apostle, 
offered his more excellent sacrifice "hy faith," 
and faith must have respect to a preceding reve- 
lation. 

We have just seen what doctrinal principles 
were implied in the practice of expiatory sacri- 
fices; and if Abel's sacrifice was of this kind, 
which is the only satisfactory account which can 
be given of it, we have no reason to suppose that 
it included any thing less or lower than those 
appointed under the law, and which are expressly 
stated to be types and figures, and shadows of 
the evangelical expiation of sin. An antecedent 
revelation to this effect must be supposed as the 
ground of his faith ; but we are not left wholly 
to this: we have an account, though brief, of 
such a revelation. 

That the account is brief is no objection. 
What is written is not, for that reason, to be dis- 
regarded. There were, doubtless, reasons suffi- 
ciently wise why the history of the patriarchal 
ages was not more largely given. If it were 
only to exercise our diligence, and to lead us to 
resort to what has been called "the analogy of 
faith," and to interpret Scripture by Scripture, 
the reason would be important. In arguing from 
this brevity or silence, however, both against the 
Divine institution of primitive sacrifice, and the 
evangelical interpretation of the sacrifice of Abel, 
some writers are apt to overlook the fact that 
the book of Genesis is but a sketch of this pe- 
riod of ancient history ; that it is so throughout, 
and that it nowhere professes to be more. Argu- 
ments of this kind, as that of Bishop Warburton, 
who thinks it strange that, if sacrifice were of 
Divine institution, not more is said on so import- 
ant a subject, seem, insensibly, to proceed upon 
the supposition that the book of Genesis was the 
ritual and directory of the patriarchal Church, 
as that of Leviticus was the ritual of the Jewish. 
Tho absence of any account of tho institution 
and prescribed mode of sacrifice might, in that 
case, have been thought strange ; but it is a brief 
history, evidently intended only to be introductory 



464 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



to that of God's chosen people, the Jews, 
whose proper historiographer Moses, by Divine 
suggestion, became. Moses grounds no argu- 
ment upon any part of it in favor of his own in- 
stitutions, except it may be an implied one in 
favor of the peculiar relation of the Jews to God, 
as the seed of Abraham, to whom the land of 
Canaan was promised, and with whom a special 
covenant was made. The history of Abraham 
he was, therefore, bound to relate more at length, 
and he has done so ; but where no immediate ap- 
plication of former events was to be made in this 
way, and the object was merely that of brief 
general instruction, we can see no particular 
rules binding upon him to omit or to insert any 
thing, to dilate or to contract his narrative. If 
we are to argue from the brevity or the omis- 
sions of the narrative of the book of Genesis, we 
may often fall into great absurdities, as many 
have done ; and it might, indeed, be almost as 
fairly argued from the silence of "this rapid his- 
tory of the antediluvian world, that no code of 
morals was Divinely enjoined before the giving 
of the ten commandments, as that sacrifices were 
not Divinely instituted before the mandates is- 
sued from Sinai ; for the silence of the book of 
Genesis equally respects both. We rather choose 
to argue, that as moral obedience must respect a 
law, and authoritative law must be a revelation 
from God, so, as faith respects doctrine and pro- 
mise, that doctrine and those promises, if faith 
be obligatory, must also be a revelation from 
God ; and again, as we collect from God's dis- 
pleasure against or favor to certain kinds and 
courses of moral conduct, that man was under a 
law which respected morals, so also, from his 
acceptance of one kind of sacrifice, and his re- 
jection of another, in the case of Cain and Abel, 
it will for the same reason follow that man was 
under a law of sacrifice, and more especially 
since the sacrifices to which God, in after ages, 
had uniform and special respect, were of the 
same kind as that of Abel — animal, vicarious, 
and expiatory. Li morals, we must suppose 
either traditional or personal revelation, or else 
give to them a human origin or invention, and in 
worship we have only the same alternative ; but 
to give to primitive morality one origin, and to 
primitive worship another — to ascribe one to God 
and another to man — is to form a very incongru- 
ous system, and to involve ourselves in great 
difficulties. We must suppose Adam to have 
been an inspired teacher of morals, but to have 
left worship indifferent ; or, if we exclude tra- 
ditional revelation, and assume that every man 
was taught personally by God in those times, that 
God made revelations of his laiu, but none of his 
grace : that he revealed the standard by which 



every man might discover his sin and danger, but 
that he made no discovery of the means by which 
a man, painfully sensible of his guilt and liable- 
ness to the punishment, might approach him so 
as to obtain his forgiveness and blessing. 

But besides this, it is easy to collect, from the' 
sacred record in the early part of Genesis, brief 
as it is, no unimportant information of the theo- 
logy which existed in the first family even prior 
to the sacrifice of Abel. That man was under 
law is certain: that death was the penalty of 
sin is equally certain. That the first pair 
sinned, and that they did not die, notwithstand- 
ing the law, were obvious facts. That the terms 
of their probation were changed, and that they 
were not shut out for ever from the Divine re- 
gard, were circumstances equally clear ; and also 
that they had means of approach to God, means 
of obtaining his favor, means of sanctification, 
means of obtaining eternal life, must also be 
necessarily inferred. Claims of justice and 
yearnings of mercy in God were seen at natural 
and legal variance and opposition ; and if these 
were harmonized — and harmonized they were, 
or "the Lamb" could not be said to have been 
slain "from the foundation of the world" — then 
must we suppose that there was some indica- 
tion of this "wisdom of God" revealed for a 
practical end, the necessity of which must always 
have existed, to prevent despair on the one 
hand, and a presumptuous disregard of the 
Divine laws on the other. Though in figurative 
language, or symbolical action, the manifesta- 
tion of this truth might be made, yet it must 
have been substantially made, or it could not 
have been practical and influential. A veiled 
truth is yet a truth, though veiled. A shadow 
indicates the outline of the substance, though a 
shadow ; and the sun, though shrouded with 
clouds, fills the hemisphere with light, though 
not with brightness — for day, however clouded, 
is far different from night. We cannot conceive 
of a theology at all suited, in any practical 
degree, to man's fallen state, unless it compre- 
hend the particulars we have given, as well as 
the knowledge of the existence and perfections 
of God ; and if we find an express indication of 
the evangelical method of saving man by the in- 
terposition of the incarnate Son of God, we may 
be sure that at least all that this indication, 
when fairly interpreted, contains, was known to 
Abel before he offered his sacrifice; and, both 
from the brevity of the narrative and the office 
of Adam as the teacher of religion to his child- 
ren, we might also infer that this indication 
was matter of converse and explanation, though 
this latter consideration we shall not insist upon. 
It is in the first promise that this indication 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY, 



465 



is to be found, and here we shall join issue with 
Mr. Davison as to its import, and the extent in 
which its meaning must have been understood in 
the first family. 

In another part of this work it has been esta- 
blished that this prophetic promise must be 
understood symbolically, and that it contained 
the first manifestation of Messiah. This, in- 
deed, Mr. Davison acknowledges, but denies 
that his Divine nature, incarnation, the vicarious 
nature of his sufferings, and their atoning effi- 
cacy, could be inferred from it. As his re- 
marks contain all that can be said against the 
commonly received opinion that it contained an 
intimation of all these, we may quote them. 
They contain some truth and much error. " One 
object of faith has been always the same: that 
object the Redeemer. The original promise in 
paradise created this prospect of faith to be the 
light and hope of the world for ever. But that 
original promise could not be interpreted by 
itself into the several parts of its appointed com- 
pletion. The general prediction of the redeem- 
ing seed, l It shall bruise thy head, and thou 
shalt bruise his heel,' though adequate in the 
mind of God to the determinate form of the 
Christian redemption, could not be so deduced 
into its final sense by the mind of man. And 
since there is no other promise or prediction ex- 
tant applicable to the faith of the first ages, and 
explanatory of the mode of the Christian redemp- 
tion, we can justly ascribe no other knowledge 
of that redemption to those ages than such as is 
comprehended in the proper and apparent sense 
of the first evangelical promise, in which the 
particular notion of a sacrifice of expiation or 
atonement, or, indeed, of any sacrifice, was then 
impossible to be discovered. It was the office 
of later revelation to fill up the design of this 
promise, and revelation alone could do it. 
For the deductions of supernatural truth are 
not within the sphere of human intellect. They 
are not to be inferred as discoverable con- 
clusions from one primary principle. A Re- 
deemer being foretold, his Divine nature, his 
incarnation, the vicarious nature of his suffer- 
ings, his death, and the atoning efficacy of it, 
all these, though real connections of truth, com- 
prehended with the original promise in the 
scheme of the Divine economy, came down to 
man, like new streams of light, by these separate 
channels, and when they are communicated in 
their proper form, then we know them — not be- 
fore." — Inquiry, etc. 

One very misleading notion, as the reader 

will perceive from what has been already said, 

lies at the bottom of these remarks. It is 

assumed, contrary to evidence, that the book of 

30 



Genesis is a complete history of the religious 
opinions of the patriarchs, and that they knew 
nothing on the subject of theology but what 
appears on the face of the account given by 
Moses, who touches their theological system 
but incidentally. We say that this notion is un- 
founded, not only because we must necessarily 
infer that, in order to be religious, nay, even 
moral men, they knew much more than the 
rapid Mosaic sketch includes, but we conclude 
this fact on the authority of the inspired writers 
of the New Testament. Thus, for instance, we 
have seen that Abraham had a revelation of a 
future state, and that Enoch prophesied of the 
"coming of the Lord to judgment, with thou- 
sands of his saints," though neither of those 
revelations are recorded by Moses. But though 
this is sufficient to show that the view taken 
of the primitive theology by Mr. Davison, and 
those whose opinions he has undertaken to 
advocate, is far too narrow, and that his con- 
clusions, from such premises, must be unsatis- 
factory, it is not on this ground that his notion 
of the general, and indefinite nature of the 
first promise shall be refuted. Let it be for- 
gotten, for a moment, that Adam was naturally 
the religious head and religious teacher of his 
family : that there was always an inspiration in 
the Church of God: that the general promises 
and prophecies were adapted to excite inquiry ; 
and that spiritual men would always, more 
or less, as now, be led into the mystery veiled 
under the letter and symbol; yet, taking the 
prophecy simply by itself, it will be obvious, 
from a careful consideration of it, that the view 
just given does not do it justice, and that it must 
have been more amply and more particularly 
understood than Mr. Davison, in support of hi8 
hypothesis, would represent. He would have 
it taken so generally as to be incapable of inter- 
pretation "into the several parts of its appointed 
completion," and to be only able to convey 
some one general notion of a deliverer. But 
why are we to confine it to one general indis- 
tinct impression? Why, though the several 
parts of this prophetic promise should be al- 
lowed to be comparatively obscure, and their 
impression to be general, should it not be con- 
sidered in the parts of which it is actually 
composed ? and why should not each part have 
been apprehended separately and distinctively, 
though yet obscurely? Of several parts the 
prophecy is, in fact, composed, and to these 
parts, as well as to the general improssion made 
by the whole, must tho attention of the patri- 
archs have been necessarily directed. The Divino 
nature, tho incarnation, tho vicarious naturo of 
Messiah's sufferings, and their atoning efficacy, 



466 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



we are told, came to man "by separate chan- 
nels," and were not in any way to be appre- 
hended in this promise. In their further and 
full development we grant this ; but let us see 
whether this promise, "interpreted even by 
itself," must not have led the patriarchs many 
steps, at least, toward all these doctrines. 

The Divine nature of the promised Redeemer, 
we are told, was a separate revelation ; but, 
surely, this promise clearly indicated that he 
was to be of a superior nature, not only to man, 
but to that fell spirit whom he was to subdue, 
and whose subtlety, power, and malice our first 
parents had so lamentably experienced: that 
he was to deprive him of that dominion which 
he had acquired over man, and restore the 
world from the evil effects which it had sustained 
from the success of his temptations. This was 
seen in the promise by an easy and natural 
interpretation, and the step from this to the 
absolute Divinity of this Restorer, or, at least, 
to an apprehension of the probability of it, was 
certainly not a large and difficult one. The 
blessings, too, which he was to procure for sin- 
ful man were of such a nature as to give the 
most exalted ideas of the being who could bring 
them back to man when forfeited by a most 
righteous sentence. They were spiritual bless- 
ings. For, if our first parents were to derive 
any consolation or benefit from the promise in 
this life: if it was to turn their repentance to 
any account ; or to give them any hope and con- 
fidence toward God, whom they had offended, to 
be assured that the head of the serpent should 
be bruised, then their attention must have been 
turned to spiritual blessings as the result of 
this, since in this life they neither obtained ex- 
emption from labor, suffering, nor death. Now, 
those who adopt the principle of Mr. Davison, 
and will allow of no revelations in those ages 
being assumed but those which are recorded 
by Moses, are bound to allow that there was in 
the promise something which was intended to 
give religious hope and comfort to the first pair, 
and to their immediate posterity, or they can- 
not account for the existence of religious wor- 
ship and the hope which it implies, since there 
is no other recorded promise of the same anti- 
quity, and. they will allow nothing to be assumed 
beside what is written. If, then, this first 
promise ministered to the religious hope, faith, 
and comfort of our first parents, it turned that 
hope to the spiritual blessings which they had 
lost, namely, the favor of God and eternal life, 
and to these as coming to them through the 
bruising of the head of the serpent by the seed of 
the woman. The same conclusion we must come 
to, if we adopt what we appear compelled to 



[PART II. 

do, on apostolic authority, the doctrine of col- 
lateral expository revelations ; for these would 
throw light upon the figurative and symbolic 
terms of the promise, and show much of its 
real and spiritual import. In either case we 
must resort to this promise as the source of that 
hope of pardon and spiritual victory which, 
from the time it was given, became an inmate 
in the bosoms of faithful men, and animated 
them in their moral conflicts. Whoever, then, 
the seed of the woman might be, he was, in 
this very promise, exhibited as the Restorer of 
the all-important spiritual blessings of the Di- 
vine favor, power over Satan, and eternal life. 
Thus their notions of his character, and, in- 
deed, of his superior nature, would be still fur- 
ther advanced. 

But the bruising of the head of Satan, which 
could only be understood of a fatal blow to be 
inflicted on the power which he had acquired 
over man, and which had displayed itself in the 
introduction of suffering and death, in the evil 
dispositions of men toward each other, and all 
the miseries which so soon sprang up in society, 
directed their hope also to future blessings as to 
themselves and their posterity, which blessings 
could be no less than deliverance from the evils 
which the subtlety of the serpent had introduced, 
namely, as to them, deliverance from affliction 
and death ; and, as to society, a return to pri- 
meval purity. Whether they looked for this de- 
liverance by a renovation of the present world, 
or by the introduction of the pious into another, 
we cannot say. If our first parents were, for 
some time, uncertain as to this point, the ante- 
diluvian family could not long remain so, since 
the doctrine of a future life was known to Enoch, 
and, if not before, was revealed to others by the 
fact of his translation, and he was but " the 
seventh from Adam." But whether by the reno- 
vation of the earth, and the restoration of the 
body of man to immortality in this world, or by 
the resurrection of the body and the glorification 
of the soul in a future state, still was such a re- 
storation implied in the promise, and the person 
by whom death was to be conquered and sin ex- 
pelled from man's heart, and immortality and 
bliss restored, was still " the seed of the woman." 
That the Divinity of a being capable of bestowing 
such favors was, at least, indicated in the first 
promise, is not, therefore, too strong a conclu- 
sion; and though new communications of this 
truth, coming through "separate channels," 
illustrated the text of this revelation, yet in the 
channel of the original promise, through which 
came the first hope of "a Redeemer," we see 
those concomitant circumstances from which it 
could not but be inferred that he was, at least, 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



467 



super-human and super-angelic. He was the seed 
of the woman, and yet superior to "the arch- 
angel fallen ;" and he was seen in that promise, 
as he is seen now, though with greater detail of 
circumstance, as the great medium of pardon, 
moral renovation, immortality, and eternal life. 

It is equally untenable to say that the doctrine 
of the incarnation was not to be deduced from 
the promise before us, but that this also came by 
"a separate channel." The further revelation 
of this truth opened for itself various courses, 
but it is there also. The being there spoken of 
as superior to the serpent, and as so superior to 
man, even in his innocence and perfection, that 
he should subdue the power which had subdued 
Adam, and recover what Adam lost, was, never- 
theless, to be "the seed of the woman:" to be 
her offspring even in her fallen state ; so that in 
truth so much of the doctrine of the incarnation 
was to be deduced from the promise, that this 
" seed of the woman" was at once to be man, and 
more than man. And then for the doctrine of his 
"vicarious sufferings," and their efficacy, why 
should we be compelled wholly to look for the 
first indication of this to revelations coming to 
man through separate and later channels ? These, 
we again thankfully acknowledge, have been 
abundantly opened ; but if we allow Adam and 
the patriarchs to have been men of but common 
powers of reflection, (though to them a very 
vigorous and even cultivated intellect might in 
justice be conceded,) then the first indication of 
this truth also must have been seen in the first 
promise. It was comparatively dim and obscure, 
we grant ; but there was a substantive manifes- 
tation of it ; and, to say nothing of collateral in- 
struction from God himself, it was apprehended 
in the first promise, not by difficult and distant, 
but by near and natural inference, that the re- 
storation of man should be effected by the suffer- 
ings of the Restorer. For what could be under- 
stood by the bruising of the heel of the seed of 
the woman in the conflict which was to spring 
from the enmity put between that seed, some one 
distinguished person so called, and the serpent, 
but a temporary injury and suffering ? and why 
should he sustain the injury rather than any other 
descendant of the woman, except that the con- 
flict in which he engaged was in his character 
of Redeemer, coming forth to the struggle for 
man's sake and for man's rescue ? As he was 
a being .superior to man, and yet man, then is 
there an indication of his incarnation ; if of his 
incarnation, then it was indicated also that his 
sufferings were voluntary, for to suffer could 
not spring from his weakness who was able to 
subdue, but from the will of him who chose, in 
this way, to subdue the grand enemy. His suf- 



fering, then, was for man, and it was voluntary 
suffering for man ; and if voluntary, then was 
there a connection between this his temporary vol- 
untary suffering and the bruising of the serpent's 
head, that is, his conquest over Satan, and the 
rescue of man from his dominion ; in other words, 
there was an efficacy in his sufferings which con- 
nected themselves, not by acc-'Jent, but by appoint- 
ment and institution, with man's salvation from 
those evils, spiritual and corporal, which had 
been induced by the power and malice of the 
Devil. 

Interpreted then by itself, there is much more 
in this promise than Mr. Davison has discovered 
in it. It exhibited to man the means of his 
salvation : this was to be effected by the inter- 
position of a being of a superior nature, made 
"the seed of the woman:" his office was to de- 
stroy the works of the Devil : he exposed him- 
self to voluntary sufferings for this end : these 
sufferings had a direct efficacy and connection 
with man's deliverance from the power of Satan, 
and, therefore, we may add, with the justice of 
God, since Satan could have no power over 
man but by God's permission, which permis- 
sion was a part of man's righteous punishment. 
This last consideration is of great importance. 
For as the patriarchs, with their lofty and clear 
notions of the majesty of the Divine Being, could 
not suppose that Satan had obtained any victory 
over him, or that the conflict between the Re- 
deemer and him was to be one of power merely, 
since they must have known that he might at 
any time have been expelled from his usurped 
dominion by the fiat of the Almighty, so the 
dominion of Satan must have been regarded by 
them in the light of a judicial permission for the 
punishment of sin, and exhibiting the awful 
justice and sanctity of the law of God. It would, 
therefore, necessarily follow, in their reasonings 
on this subject, that the sufferings of the seed of 
the woman, expressed by the bruising of his heel, 
as they were demonstrated to be voluntary on 
his part by the superior greatness of his nature, 
and were expressly appointed on the part of G od, 
as appears from the very terms of the first pro- 
mise, were connected with this exercise of puni- 
tive justice, and were designed to remove it. 
Here, then, the notion of satisfaction and atone- 
ment breaks in, and a basis was laid for the rite 
of expiatory sacrifice, and the conformity of that 
rite to the docti-ine of the first promiso is at once 
seen : it thus became a visible expression of the 
faith of the fathers in this appointed method of 
man's deliverance. 

There is nothing in this exposition of the im- 
port of tho first promise whioh is so suggested 
by what wo now know on these important sub- 



468 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



jects, as to be supposed out of the reach of the 
spiritually-minded and reflecting part of the first 
family ; and if so, then this promise may be con- 
sidered as the basis of Abel's faith, and its doc- 
trine as visibly embodied in what was peculiar in 
Abel's offering. Even if we were not able to re- 
fer to a promise sufficiently definite to support 
such an expression of faith, the former view we 
have taken would still hold good, that all faith 
necessarily supposes a previous revelation ; and 
if faith does, by its acts, refer to a particular 
revelation, then an actual previous revelation of 
some particular doctrine, object, or view, must 
necessarily be supposed, or it is not faith, but 
fancy and presumption. 

It is vainly urged against this, by Mr. Davison, 
that the faith spoken of by St. Paul in Hebrews 
xi. had for its simple and general object that 
"God is the rewarder of such as diligently seek 
him." For though this is supposed as the ground 
of every act of faith, yet the special acts re- 
corded have each their special object. Even if 
it were not so, this general principle itself is not 
to be so generally and indefinitely interpreted 
as Mr. Davison would have it, who tells us that 
the first creed was " that God is a rewarder," and 
that the other articles were given by successive 
and distant revelations. This is a partial and 
delusive statement; for, from this very text, 
which surely Mr. Davison had no right to curtail, 
another article is to be assigned to the first creed, 
namely, that God is not merely a rewarder, but 
a rewarder of those "that diligently seek him." 
Even with respect to the first, as Mr. Law justly 
observes, " God cannot be considered as a re- 
warder of mankind in any other sense than as he 
is a fulfiller of his promises made to mankind in 
the covenant of Messiah. For God could not 
give, nor man receive, any rewards or blessings, 
but in and through one Mediator, Christ Jesus." 
{Confutation o/Wap^urton.) But we may add, 
that the rewarding mentioned by the apostle is 
connected with "seeking" him. Only to such he 
was or is a rewarder " who diligently seek him ;" 
and this seeking or worshipping God supposes 
some appointed, instituted method of approaching 
him, and which, therefore, must be regarded by 
an acceptable faith, and recognized by its ex- 
ternal acts. This is not mere inference, for both 
Cain and Abel believed that "God is, and that he 
is a rewarder," and they both sought him ; but 
they sought him differently, and to Abel only and 
to his offering, that is, to his mode of "seeking" 
God, his Maker had respect. But further, the 
whole chapter shows that, beside this general 
principle, the acts of faith there recorded re- 
posed on antecedent revelations, either general 
or specific, which accorded with them. Noah's 



[PART II. 

faith respected the promise of his preservation in 
the ark : Abraham's, that he should have a son, 
that his seed should possess the earthly Canaan, 
and he himself the heavenly Canaan: Moses's 
faith, in the first instance recorded of it, re- 
spected the promises of spiritual and eternal 
blessings to those who should renounce the "plea- 
sures of sin for a season," and in the second, the 
promise of God to deliver Israel, and to fulfil the 
promise made to Abraham ; and so also in the 
other instances given, the faith constantly re- 
spected some particular revelation from God. 
From all this it will follow that the apostle, in 
this chapter, did not intend to say that the object 
of faith, in any age whatever, was exclusively 
that God is a rewarder of them who seek him, 
but that the elders who obtained the "good re- 
port" had faith in the word and promises of God* 
and for that had been honored and rewarded. He 
lays down two principles, it is true, which must 
be assumed before any special act of faith can 
be exercised — "That God is," or there could be 
no object of trust ; and that he rewards them 
that " diligently seek him," or there could be no 
motive to prayer, or to ask his interposition in 
any case ; but these principles being admitted, 
then every word and promise of God becomes an 
object of faith to good men, who derive from this 
habit of trusting in God, on the authority of his 
own engagements, that courage and constancy 
by which they are distinguished, and are crowned 
with those rewards which he has always attached 
to faith. 

And here, also, we may observe, that the 
notion stated above, that the mere belief by 
these ancient patriarchs that God is, and "that 
he is a rewarder," could not be at all apposite 
to the purpose for which this recital of the faith 
of the elders was addressed to the Hebrews. 
The object of it was clearly to induce the Jews 
who believed, not " to cast away their confidence," 
their faith in Christ. But what adaptation to 
this end can we discern in the dry statement 
that Abel and Enoch believed that God is, and 
that he is "a rewarder?" Had the Hebrews 
renounced Christ, and turned Jews again, they 
would still have believed these two points of 
doctrine. There are but two views of this re- 
cital of the instances of ancient faith which can 
harmonize it with the apostle's argument and 
design. The first is to consider him as adducing 
this list of worthies as examples of a steady 
faith in all that God had then revealed to man, 
and of the happy effects which followed. The 
connection of this with his argument will then 
be obvious ; for, by these examples, he urges the 
Hebrews to persevere in believing all that God 
had, "in these last days," revealed of his Son, 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



469 



Jesus Christ, in disregard of the dangers and 
persecutions to which they were exposed on that 
account ; because thus they would share in the 
"good report" and in the rewards of the 
"elders" of their own Church, and imitate the 
honorable piety of their ancestry. This is 
enough for our argument. But there is a second 
view, not to be slightly passed over, which is, 
that these instances of ancient faith are ad- 
duced by the apostle to prove that all the 
H elders" of the patriarchal and Jewish churches 
had faith in the Christ to come, and that, 
therefore, the Hebrews would be the imitators 
of their faith and the partakers of its rewards 
in "holding fast their confidence," their faith 
in the same Christ who had already come, and 
whom they had received as such. Nor is even 
this stronger view difficult to be made out ; for, 
though the different acts and exercises of faith 
ascribed to them have respect to different pro- 
mises and revelations, some spiritual, some 
temporal, and some mixed, yet may we trace in 
all of them a respect, more or less immediate, 
to the leading object of all faith, the Messiah 
himself. We have seen that Abel's faith had 
respect to the method of man's justification, 
through the sufferings of the seed of the woman. 
As that seed was appointed to remedy the evils 
brought into the world by the serpent, it is 
clear that eternal life could only be expected 
with reference to him, and Enoch's lofty faith in 
a future heavenly state consequently looked to 
him then, like ours now, as "the author of 
eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" — a 
conclusion, as to this patriarch, which is ren- 
dered stronger by his prophecy of Christ's 
coming to judgment "with ten thousand of his 
saints." Noah's faith had immediate respect to 
the promise of God to preserve him in the ark ; 
but it cannot be disconnected from his faith in 
the first promise and other revelations of the 
bruising of the head of the serpent by Messiah, 
a promise which had not been accomplished, 
and which, if he believed God to be faithful, 
he must have concluded could not fall to the 
ground, and that his preservation, in order to 
prevent the human race from extinction, and to 
bxnng in the seed of the woman, in the fulness 
of time, was connected with it. His faith in 
God, as his deliverer, was bound up, therefore, 
we may almost say necessarily, with his faith in 
the Redeemer, and the one was the evidence of 
the other ; for which reason, principally, it 
probably was, that the apostle says "that he be- 
came heir of the righteousness which is by 
faith." All the acts of Abraham's faith had 
respect, immediately or ultimately, to the pro- 
mised seed: the possession of Canaan by his 



posterity, from whom the Messiah was to spring : 
the enjoyment of eternal life for himself, which 
was the final effect of his justification by faith 
in the seed in whom all nations were to be 
blessed: the transaction as to Isaac, when he 
believed that God would raise him from the dead, 
because he believed that the promise could not 
fail which had declared that the Messiah should 
spring from Isaac — "In Isaac shall thy seed be 
called." The faith of Isaac, in blessing or pro- 
phesying of the condition of Jacob and Esau, 
had still reference to the Messiah, who was to 
descend from Jacob, not Esau, and the lot of 
whose posterity was regulated accordingly. The 
same observation may be made as to Jacob 
blessing the sons of Joseph, and Joseph's making 
mention of the departure of the children of 
Israel, and giving commandment concerning his 
bones: both related to the settlement of the 
tribes in Canaan, and both were complicated 
with the relation of that event to and the pecu- 
liarity stamped upon Israel by the expected 
coming of Messias. When Moses, by faith, full 
of the hopes of immortality, renounced the 
temptations of the Egyptian court, the reproach 
he endured is called "the reproach of Christ;" 
the apostle thus plainly intimating that it was 
through the expected Messiah that he looked 
for the hope of eternal life, "the recompense 
of the reward." His faith, as leader of the 
hosts of Israel, was connected with the promises 
of God to give them possession of the land of 
Canaan as their patrimony, as that was with the 
advent of the Messiah among them "in the ful- 
ness of time." The faith of Rahab may appear 
more remotely connected with the promise of 
Messiah, but the connection may still be traced. 
She believed in the God of Israel as the true 
God; but, by entertaining and preserving the 
spies, she also intimated her faith in the promise 
of God to give the descendants of Abraham 
the land of Canaan for their inheritance, which 
design she could only know from the promises 
made to Abraham, either traditionally from him, 
who had himself long resided in Canaan, or by 
information from the spies ; and if she had this 
knowledge in either way, it is not difficult to 
suppose her informed, also, as to the seed pro- 
mised to Abraham, in which all the nations of 
the earth were to be blessed. I incline to think 
that the faith of Rahab had respect not so much 
to any information she received from the spies, 
as to traditions derived from Abraham. Whe- 
ther she stood, by her descent, in any near rela- 
tion to those with whom Abraham had more 
immediately conversed, or whether Abraham bad 
very publicly testified in Canaan God's design to 
establish his posterity there, and to raise up 



470 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



from among them the holy seed, the Messiah, I 
"will not pretend to determine ; but there are two 
reasons which, at least, make it probable that 
Abraham gave a public testimony to religious 
truth during his residence in Canaan. The first 
is, his residence in tents: thereby "declaring 
plainly " says the Apostle Paul, "that he sought 
a better country, even a heavenly:" that is, de- 
claring it to the Canaanites, or the action would 
have had no meaning, declaring this doctrine 
to the people of his own age. The second is, 
that the same apostle gives it as a reason for the 
preservation of Rahab, that she believed, while 
those "that believed not" perished, meaning 
plainly the rest of the Canaanites. Now, what 
were they to believe, and why were they guilty 
for not believing ? The only rational answer to 
be given is, that they had had the means of 
knowing the designs of God, as to Abraham and 
his posterity, from whom the promised Messiah 
was to spring; and that, not crediting the 
testimony given first by Abraham, and which 
was afterward confirmed by the wonders of 
Egypt, but setting themselves against the de- 
signs of God, they "perished" judicially, while 
Rahab, on account of her faith in these revela- 
tions, was preserved. 

With respect to "Gideon, and Barak, and 
Samson, and Jephthah, and David, and Samuel," 
they were judges, kings, and conquerors. They 
had a lofty faith in the special promises of 
success which God was pleased to make to 
them; but that faith, also, sprang from, and 
was supported by, the special relation in which 
their nation stood to Jehovah : they were the 
seed of Abraham : they held their land by the 
grant of the Most High : they were all taught 
to look for the rising of the mighty prince Mes- 
siah among them ; and their faith in special 
promises of success could not but have respect 
to all these covenant engagements of God with 
their people, and may be considered as in no 
small degree grounded upon them, and, in its 
special acts, as an evidence that they had this 
faith in the deeper and more comprehensive 
promises. Certain it is, that one of them men- 
tioned in this list of warriors, David, does, in 
the very songs in which he celebrates his vic- 
tories, almost constantly blend them with the 
conquests of Messiah ; which is itself a marked 
and eminent proof of the connection which was 
constantly kept up in the minds of the pious 
governors of Israel between the political for- 
tunes of their nation and the promises which 
respected the seed of Abraham. As to the pro- 
phets, also mentioned by the apostle, they were 
constantly made the channels of new revelations 
as to the Messiah, and their faith, therefore, had 



[PART n. 

an immediate reference to him ; and for the suf- 
ferers in the cause of religious truth, so honor- 
ably recorded, the martyrs of the Old Testament 
who had "trial of cruel mockings and scourg- 
ings, were stoned, sawn asunder," etc., they are 
all represented as supported by their hope of 
immortality and a resurrection ; blessings which, 
from the first, were acknowledged to come to 
man only through the appointed Redeemer. 
Thus the faith of all had respect to Christ, either 
more directly or remotely ; and, if further proof 
were necessary, all that has been said is crowned 
by the concluding sentence of the apostle — 
"And these all having obtained a good report, 
through faith, received not the promise, God 
having provided some better thing for us, that 
they without us should not be made perfect;" 
which "better thing," whether it mean the per- 
sonal appearance of Messiah, or their reception 
into heaven by a resurrection, which God deter- 
mined should not take place as to the Church 
separately, but in a body, proves that not only 
did their faith look back to special promises of 
succor, deliverance, and other blessings, but 
was constantly looking forward to Christ, and 
to the blessings of a resurrection and eternal 
life, which he was to bestow. This, he affirms, 
too, was the case with all whom he had men- 
tioned — "these all died in the faith;" but in 
what faith did they die ? not in the faith they 
had in the promises of the various deliverances 
mentioned in the chapter: those special acts 
of faith were past, and the special promises 
to which they were directed were obtained long 
before death: they died in the faith of un- 
accomplished promises — the appearance of Mes- 
siah, and the obtaining of eternal life through 
him. 

Enough has been said to prove that the sacri- 
fice of Abel was expiatory, and that it con- 
formed, as an act of faith, to some anterior 
revelation. If that revelation were only that 
which is recorded in the first promise, on which 
some remarks have been offered, Abel's faith 
accorded with its general indication of the doc- 
trine of vicarious suffering ; but his visibly 
representing his faith in these doctrines, by an 
animal sacrifice, is not to be resolved into the 
invention and device of Abel, though he himself 
should be assumed to have been the first to 
adopt this rite, unless we suppose him to have 
been under special direction. It is very true, 
and a point not to be at any time lost sight of, 
that the open and marked acceptance of Abel's 
sacrifice was a Divine confirmation of the mode 
of approaching him by animal sacrifice ; and 
seems to have been intended as instructive and 
admonitory to the world, and to have invested 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



471 



this mode of worship with a renewed and more 
signal stamp of Divine appointment than here- 
tofore. That in this light it was considered by 
the apostle, appears plainly deducible from his 
words, "And by it, (his sacrifice,) he, being 
dead, yet speaketh." By words more emphatic 
he could not have marked the importance of 
that act, as an act of public and sanctioned in- 
struction. Abel "spoke" to all succeeding 
ages, and continues to speak, not by his per- 
sonal righteousness, not by any other circum- 
stance whatever, but by his sacrifice ; (for with 
Bvciae understood, must avrrjg agree;) and in 
no way could he, except by his sacrifice as dis- 
tinct from that of Cain, speak to future ages, 
and as that sacrifice taught how sinful guilty 
men were to approach God, and was a declara- 
tion of the necessity of atonement for their sins. 
We should think this a sufficient answer to all 
who complain of the want of an express indica- 
tion of the Divine appointment of animal expia- 
tory sacrifice in the first family. The indication 
called for is here express, since this kind of 
sacrifice was accepted, and an offering, not 
animal and not expiatory, was as publicly re- 
jected; and since, also, Abel, as we may con- 
clude from the apostle's emphatic words, did not 
act in this affair merely as a private man, but as 
one who was, by his acts, to instruct and influence 
others — "by it he, being dead, yet," even to this 
day, " speaketh." 

Decidedly, however, as this circumstance 
marked out a sanctioned method of approaching 
God, we think that Abel rather conformed to a 
previously appointed sacrificial institution, than 
then, for the first time, offered an animal and 
expiatory sacrifice, though it should be supposed 
to be under a Divine direction. For Cain could 
not have been so blamable had he not violated 
some rule, some instituted practice, as to the mode 
of worship ; and, after all that has been said, the 
clothing of our first parents with the skins of 
beasts, cannot so well be accounted for as by 
supposing those skins to have been taken from 
animals offered in sacrifice. 

But whether this typical method of represent- 
ing the future atonement first took place with 
Abel, or previously with Adam, a Divine origin 
must be assigned to it. The proof of this has 
been greatly anticipated in the above observa- 
tions, which have been designed to establish the 
expiatory character of Abel's offering ; but a few 
additional remarks on this subject may not be 
useless. 

The human invention of primitive animal sac- 
rifice is a point given up by Mr. Davison, and 
other writers on the same side, if such sacrifices 
can bo proved expiatory. The humd.Ii invention 



of eucharistic offerings they can conceive ; and 
Mr. Davison thinks he can find a natural explan- 
ation of the practice of offering animal sacrifice, 
if considered as a confession of guilt; but for 
" that condition of animal sacrifice, its expiatory 
atoning power," he observes, "I confess myself 
unable to comprehend how it can ever be grounded 
on the principles of reason, or deduced from the 
light of nature. There exists no discernible 
connection between the one and the other. On 
the contrary, nature has nothing to say for such 
an expiatory power, and reason every thing 
against it. For that the life of a brute creature 
should ransom the life of a man ; that its blood 
should have any virtue to wash away his sin, or 
purify his conscience, or redeem his penalty ; or 
that the involuntary sufferings of a being, itself 
unconscious and irrational, should have a moral 
efficacy to his benefit or pardon, or be able to 
restore him with God, these are things repug- 
nant to the sense of reason, incapable of being 
brought into the scale of the first ideas of nature, 
and contradictory to all genuine religion, natural 
and revealed. For as to the remission of sin, it 
is plainly altogether within the prerogative of 
God, an act of his mere mercy ; and since it is 
so, every thing relating to the conveyance and the 
sanction, the profession and the security of it, can 
spring only from his appointment." 

But this being allowed, and nothing can be 
more obvious, then it follows that the patriarchal 
sacrifices, if proved to be expiatory, as the 
means of removing wrath from offenders, and of 
conveying and sanctioning pardon, must be al- 
lowed to have had Divine institution, and the 
notion of their being of human device must, in 
consequence, be given up. In proof of this, we 
have seen that Abel's justification was the result 
of his faith, and that this faith was connected 
with that in his sacrifice which distinguished it 
from the offering of Cain ; and thus its expiatory 
character is established by its having been the 
means to him of the remission of sin, and the 
appointed medium of the "conveyance" and " se- 
curity" of the benefit. We have also seen that 
Noah's burnt offering was connected with the 
averting of the wrath of God from the future 
world, so that not even its wickedness should lead 
him again " to destroy all flesh" by a universal 
flood ; that the sacrifices of the friends of Job 1 

1 Mr. Davison, in pursuances of his theory, that the pa- 
triarchal sacrifices wero not expiatory, has strangely 
averred that this transaction is "a proof of the efflcacj of 
Joh's prayer, not of the expiatory power of the sacrifice of 
his friends." Why, then, Mas not the prayer efficacious, 
without the sacrifice? Ami lunv could the - burnt offering" 
of his friends give efficacy to his prayer, unless by way of 

expiation? Wha1 is the oilier of expiatory sacrifice. lmt to 
avert tho anger of God from the offerer 1 This was pro- 



472 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



were of the same expiatory character ; and that 
the reason for the prohibition of blood was, under 
both dispensations, the patriarchal and the Mo- 
saic, the same. To these may be added two 
passages in Exodus, which show that animal sac- 
rifices, among the patriarchs, were offered for 
averting the Divine displeasure, and that this no- 
tion of sacrifice was entertained by the Israelites 
previous to the giving of the law. "Let us go, 
I pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, 
and sacrifice unto the Lord our God, lest he fall 
upon us with pestilence, or with the sword." Exo- 
dus v. 3. "Thou must give us also sacrifices 
and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto 
the Lord our God." Exodus x. 25, 26. The re- 
mark of Dr. Richie (Pec. Doc.) is here pertinent, 
81 In these two passages Moses and Aaron speak 
of sacrificing not as a new and uncommon thing, 
but as a usual mode of worship, with which Pha- 
raoh was as well acquainted as themselves ; con- 
sequently, a thing that was not a late or new in- 
vention." And in pursuance of the same argu- 
ment it may be noted, that Moses, even in the 
law, nowhere speaks of expiatory sacrifice as a 
new institution, a rite which was henceforward 
to be considered as bearing a higher character 
than formerly, but as a thing familiar to the 
people. Now such an intimation would, doubt- 
less, have been necessary on the very ground 
just stated, the repugnancy of animal sacrifices, 
considered as expiatory, to nature and rea- 
son ; but to prepare them for such a change, for 
an institution so repugnant to the former class 
and order of their notions on this subject, there 
is nothing said by Moses, no intimation of an 
alteration in the character of sacrifice is given ; 
but a practice manifestly familiar is brought 
under new and special rules, assigned to certain 
persons as the sacrificers, and to certain places, 
and appropriated to the national religion, and the 
system of a theocratical government. "Whence, 
then, did this familiarity with the notion of ex- 
piatory sacrifice arise among the Israelites ? If 
the book of Genesis were written previously to 
the law, and they collected the notion from that, 
then this is proof that they understood the patri- 
archal sacrifices to be expiatory ; and if, as others 
think, that book was not written the first in the 
series of the Pentateuch, but the last, they had 
the notion from tradition and custom. 

Though we think that the evidence of Scrip- 
ture is of sufficient clearness to establish the 
Divine origin of the antediluvian sacrifices ; and, 

cisely the effect of the burnt offering of Eliphaz and his 
friends : that it was connected with the prayer of Job, 
no more alters the expiatory character of that offering, 
than the prayers which accompanied such offerings under 
the law. 



[part n. 

with Hallet, (in Hebrews xi. 4,) regard the pub- 
lic Divine acceptance of Abel's sacrifice as amount- 
ing to a demonstration of their institution by the 
authority of God, the argument drawn from the 
natural incongruity of sacrificial rites, on which 
so many writers have forcibly dwelt, ought not 
to be overlooked. It comes in to confirm the 
above deductions from Scripture, and though it 
has been sometimes attacked with great inge- 
nuity, it has never been solidly refuted. " It is 
evident," says Delany, (Revelation Examined,) 
"that unprejudiced reason never could antece- 
dently dictate that destroying the best of our 
fruits and creatures could be an office acceptable 
to God. but quite the contrary. Also that it did 
not prevail from any demand of nature is un- 
deniable, for I believe that no man will say that 
we have any natural instinct or appetite to 
gratify in spilling the blood of an innocent, in- 
offensive creature upon the earth, or burning his 
body upon an altar. Nor could there be any 
temptation from appetite to do this in those ages, 
when the whole sacrifice was consumed by fire, 
or when, if it were not, yet men wholly ab- 
stained from flesh." 

The practice cannot be resolved into priestcraft, 
for no order of priests was then instituted ; and 
if men resolve it into superstition, they must not 
only suppose that the first family were supersti- 
tious, but also that God, by his acceptance of 
Abel's sacrifice, gave his sanction to a supersti- 
tious and irrational practice ; and if none will be 
so bold as this, there remains no other resource 
than to contend for its reasonableness, in opposi- 
tion to the argument just quoted from Delany ; 
and to aid the case by assuming, also, that it 
was the dictate of a delicate and enlightened 
sentimentalism. This is the course taken by Mr. 
Davison, who has placed what others have urged 
with the same intent in the most forcible light, 
so that in refuting him we refute all. To be- 
gin with "the more simple forms of oblation;" 
those offerings of the fruits of the earth, which 
have been termed eucharistical, "reason," says 
Mr. Davison, "seems to recognize them at once; 
they are the tokens of a commemorative piety, 
rendering to the Creator and supreme Giver a 
portion of his gifts, in confession of his original 
dominion in them, and of his continued favor and 
beneficence." But this is very far from being a 
rational account of even simple thank offerings 
of fruits : supposing such offerings to have been 
really made in those primitive times. Of this, 
in fact, we have no evidence, for we read only of 
one oblation of this kind, that of Cain, and it 
was not accepted by God. But waiving that 
objection, and supposing such offerings to have 
formed a part of the primitive worship, from 



en. xxii.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



473 



whence, we may ask, did men obtain the notion 
that in such acts they gave back to the supreme 
Giver some portion of his gifts? It is not, 
surely, assumed by the advocates of this theory, 
that the first men were like those stupid idol- 
aters of following ages, who thought that the 
deities themselves feasted upon the oblations 
brought to their temples. On the contrary, 
their views of God were elevated and spiritual ; 
and whenever such a Being is acknowledged, it 
is clear that the notion of giving back any thing 
to him can only be a rational one when he has 
appointed something to be done in return for his 
gifts, or to be appropriated to his service ; which 
leads us at once to the doctrine of a Divine insti- 
tution. The only rational notion of a return to 
God as an acknowledgment for his favors, when 
notions of his spirituality and independence are 
entertained, is that of gratitude, and thanks- 
giving, and obedience. These form "a reason- 
able service;" but when we go beyond these, we 
may well be at a loss to know " what we can 
give unto him." If he requires more than these, 
as acknowledgments of our dependence and his 
goodness, how should we know that he requires 
more, unless we had some revelation on the sub- 
ject? And if we had a general revelation, im- 
porting that something more would be acceptable, 
how should we be able to fix upon one particular 
thing, as the subject of such an oblation, more 
than another ? A Divine institution would in- 
vest such offerings with a symbolical, or a typi- 
cal character, or both; and then they would 
have a manifest reason; but, assuredly, inde- 
pendent of that, they would rest upon no ra- 
tional ground whatever : there could be no 
discernible connection between the act and the 
end, in any case where the majesty and spiritual- 
ity of God were recognized. Mr. Davison as- 
sumes that though "the prayer or the oblation 
cannot purchase the favor of God, it may make 
us fitter objects of his favor." But, we ask, 
even if we should allow that prayer makes us 
fitter objects of his favor, how we could know 
even this without revelation; or, if we could 
place this effect to the account of prayer by 
something like a rational deduction, how we could 
get the idea that to approach a spiritual Being 
with a few handfuls of fruit gathered from the 
earth, and to present them in addition to our 
prayers, should render us the "fitter objects" of 
the Divine beneficence? Thei-e is no rational 
connection between the act and tho end, on which 
to establish the conclusion. 

Reason failing here, recourse is had to senti- 
ment. 

"In tho first dawn of the world, and the be- 
ginnings of religion, it is reasonablo to think 



that the direction of feeling and duty was more 
exclusively toward God. The recent creation 
of the world, the revelations in paradise, and 
the great transactions of his providence, may 
well be thought to have wrought a powerful im- 
pression on the first race, and to have given 
them, though not a purer knowledge, yet a more 
intimate and a more intense perception, of his 
being and presence. The continued miracle of 
the actual manifestations of God would enforce 
the same impressions upon them. These having 
less scope of action in communion with their 
fellow-creatures, in the solitude of life around 
them, in the great simplicity of the social state, 
and the consequent destitution of the objects 
of the social duties, their religion would make 
the acts of devotion its chief monuments of 
moral obligation. Works of justice and charity 
could have little place: works of adoration 
must fill the void. And it is real action, not 
unembodied sentiment, which the Creator has 
made to be the master principle of our moral 
constitution. From these causes, some boldness 
in the form of a representative character, some 
ritual clothed with the imagery of a symbolical 
expression, would more readily pass into the 
first liturgy of nature. Not simple adoration, 
not the naked and unadorned oblations of the 
tongue, but adoration invested in some striking 
and significative form, and conveyed by the in- 
strumentality of material tokens, would be most 
in accordance with the strong energies of feel- 
ing, and the insulated condition of the primitive 
race." — Primitive Sac. 

Two or three observations will be sufficient 
to dissipate all these fancy pictures. 1. It is 
not true that the "recent creation of the world, 
the revelations in paradise," etc., made that 
great moral impression upon the first men which 
is here described. That impression did not 
keep our first parents from sin ; much less did 
it produce this effect upon Cain and his descend- 
ants ; nor upon "the sons of God," the race 
of Seth, who soon became corrupt; and so 
wickedness rapidly increased, until the measure 
of the sin of the world was filled up. 2. It is 
equally unfounded, that in that state of society 
" works of justice and charity could have little 
place, and that works of adoration must fill the 
void;" for the crimes laid to the charge of the 
antediluvians are wickedness, and especially 
violence, which is opposed both to justice and to 
charity; and it is impossible to suppose any 
state of society existing, sinco the fall, in whiofe 
both justice and charity were not virtues ol' daily 
requirement, and that in their constaut and 
vigorous exercise. Cain, for instance, needed 
both, for he grossly violated both in hating and 



474 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART n. 



murdering his brother. 3. That strongly active 
devotional sentiment which Mr. Davison sup- 
poses to exist in those ages, which required 
something more to embody and represent it than 
prayer and praise, and which with so much 
plastic energy is assumed to have clothed itself 
"with the imagery of a symbolical expression," 
is equally contradicted by the facts of the 
case. There was no such excess of the devo- 
tional principle. On Mr. Davison's own inter- 
pretation of the "more abundant sacrifice," 
more in quantity, one of the two brothers, first 
descended from the first pair, was deficient in 
it: the rapidly spreading wickedness of man 
shows that the religious sentiment was weak and 
not powerful: it is not seen even in the per- 
verted forms of idolatry and superstition, for 
neither is charged upon the antediluvians, but 
moral wickedness only ; and instead of their 
having "a more intense perception of the be- 
ing and presence of God," as Mr. Davison ima- 
gines for them, Moses declares "the imagination 
of the thoughts of the heart of man to be only 
evil continually," and that even long before the 
flood, and while men were alive who had con- 
versed with Adam. Thus pass away the fancies 
on which this theory is built; nor is that of 
Bishop Warburton better supported, who re- 
solves these early oblations into a representation 
by action, arising out of the "defects and imper- 
fections of the primitive language ;" for of these 
defects and imperfections there is not only not 
the least evidence, but the irresistible inference 
from the narrative of Moses is, that a language 
was in use in the first family sufficiently copious 
for all subjects of religion, as well as for the 
common intercourse of life. This notion also 
further involves the absurdity and contradiction, 
that when man was created in perfection, he 
should not be endowed with the power of em- 
bodying his thoughts in language. 

If, then, the presentation of the mere fruits 
of the earth to God as thank offerings and ac- 
knowledgments of dependence, cannot be reason- 
ably accounted for without supposing a Divine 
institution, the difficulty is increased when ani- 
mal oblations are added to these offerings, and 
considered also as merely eucharistical. All 
the difficulties just mentioned lie with equal 
force against such a designation of them, with 
these additional considerations: 1. That the put- 
ting beasts to death is an act farther removed 
from the idea of a mere oblation, since nothing 
would, without a revelation, appear less accept- 
able to a merciful and benevolent being. 2. A 
moral objection would also interpose. Man's 
dominion of the creatures was from God; but 
it was to be exercised, like his power of every 



other kind, upon his responsibility. Wanton 
cruelty to animals must, of necessity, have been 
considered a moral evil. To inflict pain and 
death upon even the noxious animals, without 
so clear a necessity as should warrant it, and 
without its being necessary to the "subduing" 
of the earth, could not be thought blameless, 
much less upon those innoxious animals which, 
from the beginning, were the only subjects of 
sacrifice. This would be felt the more strongly 
before flesh had been permitted to man for food, 
and when, so to speak, a greater sacredness was 
thrown around the life of the domestic animals 
than afterward; nor can it appear reasonable, 
even if we were to allow that a sort of senti- 
mentality might lead man to fix upon the obla- 
tion of slain beasts as an expressive ritual to be 
added to the "Liturgy of Nature," that, with- 
out any authority, any intimation from Heaven 
that such sacrifices would be well pleasing to 
God, men could conclude that a mere senti- 
mental notion of ceremonial fitness, and giving 
"boldness to the representative character" of 
worship, would be a sufficient moral reason to 
take of their flocks and herds, and shed their 
blood and burn their flesh upon altars. Mr. 
Davison endeavors to meet the objection to the 
natural incongruity of animal sacrifices as acts 
of worship, by distinguishing between the two 
conditions of animal sacrifice, "the guilt of the 
worshipper and the expiation of his sin." Ex- 
piatory sacrifice, we have seen, he gives up, as 
not for a moment to be referred to human inven- 
tion, but thinks that there was no natural incon- 
gruity in the offering of animals as a mere 
acknowledgment of guilt, and as a confession of 
sin and the desert of death. But still, if we 
could trace any connection between this sym- 
bolical confession and the real case of man, 
which is difficult, if not impossible, what could 
lead him to the idea that more than simple con- 
fession of sin by the lips, and the penitent feel- 
ings of the heart, would be acceptable to God, 
if he had received no revelation on the subject? 
And if this, like the former, were a device of 
mere ceremonial sentimentalism, it was still too 
frail a ground to justify his putting the inferior 
creatures to death, without warrant from their 
Creator and Preserver. It is also equally un- 
fortunate for this theory, and, indeed, wholly 
fatal to it, that the distinction of clean and 
unclean beasts existed, as we have already seen, 
before the flood. Upon what, then, was this 
distinction founded? Not upon their qualities 
as good for food or otherwise, for animals were 
not yet granted for food ; and the death of one 
animal would therefore have been just as appro- 
priate as a symbol of gratitude, or as an acknow- 



CH. XXII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



475 



ledgment of the desert of death, as another — a 
horse as a heifer, a dog as a lamb. Nay, if 
animals were intended to represent the sinner 
himself, unclean and ferocious animals would 
have been fitter types of his fallen and sinful 
state ; and that they were to be clean, harmless, 
and without spot, shows that they represented 
some other. The distinction of clean and un- 
clean, however, did exist in that early period, 
and it is only to be accounted for by referring 
it to a sacrificial selection, and that upon Divine 
authority. 

To the human invention of sacrifice, the ob- 
jection of "will-worship" has also been forcibly 
and triumphantly urged. "Who hath required 
this at your hand?" "In vain do they worship 
me, teaching for doctrines the commandments 
of men." This has the force of an axiom, 
which, if it ought not to be applied too rigidly 
to the minutiae of forms of worship when they 
connect themselves with authorized leading acts, 
yet must have a direct application to a worship 
which, in its substance and leading circum- 
stance, was eminently sacrificial, if it be re- 
garded as wholly of human device. "Thus," 
says Hallet, "Abel must have worshipped God in 
vain, if his sacrificing had been merely a com- 
mandment of his father Adam, or an invention 
of his own;" and he justly asks, "why we do 
not now offer up a bullock, a sheep, or a pigeon, 
as a thank offering after any remarkable deliver- 
ance, or as an evidence of our apprehensions of 
the demerit of sin?" The sure reason is, be- 
cause we cannot know that God will accept such 
"will-worship," and so conclude that we should 
herein worship God " in vain." 

The Divine institution of expiatory sacrifice 
being thus carried up to the first ages, and to 
the family of the first sinning man, we perceive 
the unity of the three great dispensations of 
religion to man, the Patriarchal, the Levi- 
tical, and the Christian, in the great prin- 
ciple, "And without shedding of blood is no 
remission." But one religion has been given 
to man since his fall, though gradually com- 
municated. "This may be best denominated 
TnE ministry of reconciliation, for its ex- 
clusive object, however modified externally, 
is to satisfy God's justice, through the in- 
strumentality of the woman's predicted seed ; to 
restore fallen man to the Divine image of holi- 
ness, by the agency of the gracious Spirit ; and 
thus, without compromising any one of God's 
attributes, to reconcile an apostate race to their 
offended Creator." — Faker's Iforce Mos. 

Wo have now adduced the scriptural evidonco 
of the atonement made by the death of Christ 
for tho sins of the world ; a doctrine not specu- 



lative and indifferent, but vital to the whole 
scheme of Christianity ; a doctrine which tends 
to produce the most awful sense of sin, and to 
afford the most solemn motive to repentance : 
which at once excites the most sublime views of 
the justice and mercy of God, and gives the most 
affecting exhibition of the compassion and love 
of Christ ; which is the only ground of faith in 
the pardoning love of God, and the surest guard 
against presumption ; and which, by opening ac- 
cess to God in prayer, keeps before man a safe 
and secure refuge amidst the troubles of life, and 
in the prospect of eternity. It is the only view, 
too, of the death of Christ which interprets the 
Holy Scriptures into a consistent and unequivo- 
cal meaning. Their language is wholly con- 
structed upon it, and, therefore, can only be in- 
terpreted by it : it is the key to their style, their 
allusions, their doctrines, their prophecies, their 
types. All is confused and delusive without it : 
all clear, composed, and ordered, when placed 
under its illumination. To Christ under his sac- 
rificial character, as well as in his regal claims, 
"give all the prophets witness ;" and in this tes- 
timony all the services of the tabernacle, and the 
rites of the patriarchal age, concur. Christ, as 
"the Lamb of God," was "slain from the founda- 
tion of the world ;" and when the world shall be 
no more, he will appear before his glorified saints, 
as "the Lamb newly slain," shedding upon them 
the unabated efficacy of his death for ever. Nor 
is it a doctrine to be rejected without imminent 
peril: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink 
his blood, ye have no life in you ;" words which, 
as Whitby justly observes, "clearly declare the 
necessity of faith in his body given and his 
blood shed for the remission of sins, in order to 
justification and salvation." 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

benefits derived to man from the atone- 
ment — JUSTIFICATION. 

When wc speak of benefits received by the 
human race, in consequence of the atonement of 
Christ, the truth is, that man, having forfeited 
good of every kind, and even life itself, by his 
transgression, all that remains to him more than 
evil in tho natural world, and in the dispensa- 
tions of general and particular providence, as 
well as all spiritual blessings put within his 
reach by the gospel, are to be considered as tho 
fruits of the death and intercession of Christ, 
and ought to be gratefully acknowledged as such. 



476 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



We enjoy nothing in our own right, and receive 
all from the hands of the Divine mercy. We now, 
however, speak in particular of those benefits 
Which immediately relate to, or which constitute 
what in Scripture is called our salvation ; by 
which term is meant the deliverance of man from 
the penalty, dominion, and pollution of his sins ; 
his introduction into the Divine favor in this life ; 
and his future and eternal felicity in another. 

The grand object of our redemption was to ac- 
complish this salvation ; and the first effect of 
Christ's atonement, whether anticipated before 
his coming, as "the Lamb slain from before the 
foundation of the world," or when effected by 
his passion, was to place God and man in that 
new relation, from which salvation might be de- 
rived to the offender. 

The only relation in which an offended sove- 
reign and a guilty subject could stand, in mere 
justice, was the relation of a judge and a crimi- 
nal capitally convicted. The new relation effected 
by the death of Christ, is, as to God, that of an 
offended sovereign having devised honorable 
means to suspend the execution of the sentence 
of death, and to offer terms of pardon to the 
condemned ; and, as to man, that, as the object 
of this compassion, he receives assurance of the 
placableness of God, and his readiness to forgive 
all his offences, and may, by the use of the pre- 
scribed means, actually obtain this favor. 

To this is to be added another consideration. 
God is not merely disposed to forgive the offences 
of men upon their suit and application, but an 
affecting activity is ascribed in Scripture to the 
compassion of God. The atonement of Christ 
having made it morally practicable to exercise 
mercy, and having removed all legal obstruc- 
tions out of the way of reconciliation, that mercy 
pours itself forth in ardent and ceaseless efforts 
to accomplish its own purposes, and, not content 
with waiting the return of man in penitence and 
prayer, " God is in Christ reconciling the world 
unto himself;" that is to say, he employs various 
means to awaken men to a due sense of their 
fallen and endangered condition, and to prompt 
and influence them (sometimes with mighty effi- 
cacy) to seek his favor and grace, in the way 
which he has himself ordained in his revealed 
word. 

The mixed and checkered external circum- 
stances of men in this present life is a providen- 
tial arrangement which is to be attributed to this 
design ; and, viewed under this aspect, it throws 
an interesting light upon the condition of man- 
kind, unknown to the wisest among those nations 
which have not had the benefits of revealed re- 
ligion, except that some glimpses, in a few cases, 
may have been afforded of this doctrine by the 



[part II. 

scattered and broken rays of early tradition. 
Nor has this been always adverted to by those 
writers who have enjoyed the full manifestations 
of Divine truth in the Scriptures. By many, the 
infliction of labor, and sorrow, and disappoint- 
ment upon fallen man, and the shortening of the 
term of human life, are considered chiefly, if not 
exclusively, as measures adopted to prevent evil, 
or of restraining its overflow in society. Such 
ends are, doubtless, by the wisdom of God, thus 
effected to a great and beneficial extent; but 
there is a still higher design. These dispensa- 
tions are not only instruments of prevention, but 
designed means of salvation, preparatory to and 
cooperative with those agencies, by which that 
result can only be directly produced. The state 
of man shows that he is under a checkered dis- 
pensation, in which justice and forbearance, 
mercy and correction, have all their place, and 
in which there is a marked adaptation to his 
state as a reprieved criminal — a being still guilty, 
but within the reach of hope. The earth is 
cursed, but it yields its produce to man's toil : 
life is prolonged in some instances and cur- 
tailed in others, and is uncertain to all : we have 
health and sickness, pleasures and pains, grati- 
fications and disappointment ; but as to all, in 
circumstances however favored, dissatisfaction 
and restlessness of spirit are still felt ; a thirst 
which nothing earthly can allay, a vacuity which 
nothing in our outward condition can supply. 
There is a manifestation of mercy to save, as 
well as of wisdom to prevent, and the great end 
of the whole is explained by the inspired record : 
" Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes 
with man, to bring back his soul from the pit." 
His "goodness" is designed to lead us "to re- 
pentance," his rod to teach us wisdom. " In the 
day of adversity consider." 

Another benefit granted for the same end, is 
the revelation of the will of God, and the decla- 
ration of his purposes of grace as to man's 
actual redemption. These purposes have been 
declared to man, with great inequality we grant, 
a mystery which we are not able to explain ; but 
we have the testimony of God in his own word, 
though we cannot in many cases trace the pro- 
cess of the revelation, that in no case, that in 
no nation, "has he left himself without wit- 
ness." Oral revelations were made to the first 
men : these became the subject of tradition, and 
were carried into all nations, though the mercy 
of God, in this respect, was abused by that wil- 
ful corruption of his truth of which all have 
been guilty. To the Jews he was pleased to give 
a written record of his will ; and the possession 
of this, in its perfect evangelical form, has be- 
come the distinguished privilege of all Christian 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. XXIII.] 

nations, who are now exerting themselves to make 
the blessing universal — a result which probably 
is not far distant. By this direct benefit of the 
atonement of Christ, the law under which we are 
all placed is exhibited in its full, though reprov- 
ing, perfection: the character of "Him with 
whom we have to do" is unveiled : the history of 
the redeeming acts of our Saviour is recorded : 
his example, his sufferings, his resurrection, and 
intercession, the terms of our pardon, the pro- 
cess of our regeneration, the bright and attract- 
ive path of obedience, are all presented to our 
meditations, and, surmounting the whole, is that 
" immortality which has been brought to light 
through the gospel." Having the revelation, also, 
in this written form, it is guarded against corrup- 
tion, and, by the multiplication of copies in the 
present day, it has become a book for family 
reading, and private perusal and study ; so that 
neither can we, except wilfully, remain ignorant 
of the important truths it contains, nor can they 
be long absent from the attention of the most 
careless ; from so many quarters are they ob- 
truded upon them. 

To this great religious advantage we are to 
add the institution of the Christian ministry, or 
the appointment of men, who have been them- 
selves reconciled to God, to preach the word of 
reconciliation to others ; to do this publicly, in 
opposition to all contempt and persecution, in 
every place where they may be placed, and to 
which they can have access : to study the word 
of God themselves ; faithfully and affectionately 
to administer it to persons of all conditions ; and 
thus, by a constant activity, to keep the light of 
truth before the eyes of men, and to impress it 
upon their consciences. 

These means are all accompanied with the 
influence of the Holy Spirit ; for it is the con- 
stant doctrine of the Scriptures, that men are 
not left to the mere influence of a revelation of 
truth, and the means of salvation, but are gra- 
ciously excited and effectually aided in all their en- 
deavors to avail themselves of both. Before the 
flood, the Holy Spirit is represented as " striving" 
with men, to restrain them from their wicked- 
ness, and to lead them to repentance. This es- 
pecially was his benevolent employ, as we learn 
from St. Peter, during the whole time that "the 
ark was preparing," the period in which Noah 
fulfilled his ministry as "preacher of righteous- 
ness" to the disobedient world. Under the law, 
the wicked are said to "grieve" and "resist" 
the Holy Spirit; and good men are seen earnestly 
supplicating his help, not only in extraordinary 
cases, and for some miraculous purposo, but in 
the ordinary course of religious experience and 
conflict. The final establishment and the moral 



477 



effects flowing from Messiah's dominion, are as- 
cribed, by the prophets, to the pouring out of 
the Spirit, as rain upon the parched ground, and 
as the opening of rivers in the desert ; and that 
the agency of the Spirit is not confined, in the 
New Testament, to gifts and miraculous powers, 
and their effects in producing mere intellectual 
conviction of the truth of Christianity, but is 
directed to the renovation of our nature, and the 
carrying into full practical effect the redeeming 
designs of the gospel, is manifest from numer- 
ous passages and arguments to be found in the 
discourses of Christ and the writings of his 
apostles. In our Lord's discourse with Nicode- 
mus, he declares that the regenerate man is 
"born of the Spirit." He promises to send the 
Spirit "to convince (or reprove) the world of 
sin." It is by the Spirit that our Lord repre- 
sents himself as carrying on the work of human 
salvation, after his return to heaven, and in this 
sense promises to abide with his disciples for 
ever, and to be with them "unto the end of the 
world." In accordance with this, the apostles 
ascribe the success of their preaching, in pro- 
ducing moral changes in the hearts of men, to 
the influence of the Spirit. So far from attri- 
buting this to the extraordinary gifts with which 
the Spirit had furnished them, St. Paul denies 
that this efficacy was to be ascribed either to him- 
self or Apollos, though both were thus richly en- 
dowed; and he expressly attributes the "in- 
crease," which followed their planting and water- 
ing, to God. The Spirit is, therefore, represented 
as giving life to the dead souls of men ; the moral 
virtues are called "the fruit of the Spirit;" and 
to be "led by the Spirit," is made the proof of 
our being the sons of God. 

Such is the wondrous and deeply affecting 
doctrine of Scripture. The fruit of the death 
and intercession of Christ is not only to render 
it consistent with a righteous government to 
forgive sin, but to call forth the active exercise 
of the love of God to man. His "good Spirit," 
the expressive appellation of the third person 
of the blessed trinity in the Old Testament, 
visits every heart, and connects his secret influ- 
ences with outward means, to awaken the atten- 
tion of man to spiritual and eternal things, and 
win his heart to God. 1 

To this operation, this "working of God in 
man," in conjunction with the written and 
preached word, and other means of religious 

l"llliusesso duritiom human i cordis emollire, ciun ;iut 
por snlutiferam pnvdicatiom-m Kvan^olii. aut alia quai-un- 
quo rationo in pectora hominum reoipitur: ilium aoa 
illuminare, et in agnitionom Poi atquo in omnoin viain 
veritatis ct in totius vitfiB novitalom. el pefpQtOM& mlutlfl 

speta perducere."— Bishot J 



478 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



instruction and excitement, is to be attributed 
that view of the spiritual nature of the law under 
which we are placed, and the extent of its de- 
mands, which produces conviction of the fact 
of sin, and at once annihilates all self-righteous- 
ness, and all palliations of offence : which withers 
the goodly show of supposititious virtues, and 
brings the convicted transgressor, whatever his 
character may be before men, and though, in 
comparison of many of his fellow-creatures, he 
may have been much less sinful, to say before 
God, "Behold, I am vile : what shall I answer 
thee ?" The penalty of the law, death, eternal 
death, being at the same time apprehended and 
meditated upon, the bondage of fear and the 
painful anticipations of the consequences of sin 
follow, and thus he is moved by a sense of dan- 
ger to look out for a remedy; and this being 
disclosed in the same revelation, and unfolded 
by the same Spirit, from whose secret influence 
he has received this unwonted tenderness of 
heart, this "broken and contrite heart," he con- 
fesses his sins before God, and appears like the 
publican in the temple, smiting upon his breast, 
exclaiming, " God be merciful to me a sinner !" 
thus at once acknowledging his own offence and 
unworthiness, and flying for refuge to the mercy 
of his offended God proclaimed to him in Christ. 
That which every such convinced and awakened 
man needs is mercy, the remission of his sins, 
and consequent exemption from their penalty. 
It is only this which can take him from under 
the malediction of the general law which he has 
violated: only this which can bring him into 
a state of reconciliation and friendship with the 
Lawgiver, whose righteous displeasure he has 
provoked. This act of mercy is, in the New 
Testament, called justification, and to the con- 
sideration of this doctrine we must now direct 
our attention. 

On the nature of justification, its extent, and 
the mode in which it is attained, it is not neces- 
sary to say that various opinions have been 
asserted and defended by theologians; but be- 
fore we advert to any of them, our care shall be 
to adduce the natural and unperverted doctrine 
of Scripture on a subject which it is of so much 
importance to apprehend clearly, in that light 
in which it is there presented. 

The first point which we find established by 
the language of the New Testament is, that jus- 
tification, the pardon and remission of sins, the 
non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of 
righteousness, are terms and phrases of the same 
import. The following passages may be given 
in proof: 

Luke xviii. 13, 14: "I tell you, this man 
went down to his house justified, rather than the 



other." Here the term "justified" must mean 
pardoned, since the publican confessed himself 
"a sinner," and asked "mercy" in that rela- 
tion. 

Acts xiii. 38, 39: "Be it known unto you, 
men and brethren, that through this man is 
preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and 
by him, all that believe are justified from all 
things, from which ye could not be justified by 
the law of Moses." Here, also, it is plain that 
forgiveness of sins and justification mean the 
same thing, one term being used as explanatory 
of the other. 

Romans iii. 25, 26: "Whom God hath set 
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission 
of sins that are past, through the forbearance 
of God : to declare, I say, at this time his righte- 
ousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of 
him which believeth in Jesus." To remit sins 
and to justify are here also represented as the 
same act ; consequent upon a declaration of the 
righteousness of God, and upon our faith. 

Rom. iv. 5-8: "But to him that worketh not, 
but believeth on him that justifieih the ungodly, 
his faith is counted for righteousness : even 
as David also describeth the blessedness of the 
man unto whom God imputeth righteousness 
without works, saying, Blessed are they whose 
iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered : 
blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not 
impute sin." The quotation from David, intro- 
duced by the apostle, by way of illustrating his 
doctrine of the justification of the ungodly, 
by " counting his faith for righteousness," shows 
clearly that he considered "justification," "the 
imputing of righteousness," "the forgiveness 
of iniquities," the "covering of sin," the "non- 
imputation of sin," as of the same import: 
acts substantially equivalent one to another, 
though under somewhat different views, and 
therefore expressed by terms respectively con- 
vertible: this variety of phrase being adopted, 
probably, to preserve the idea which runs 
throughout the whole Scripture, that, in the re- 
mission or pardon of sin, Almighty God acts in 
his character of Ruler and Judge, showing mercy 
upon terms satisfactory to his justice, when he 
might in rigid justice have punished our trans- 
gressions to the utmost. The term justification 
especially is judiciary, and taken from courts 
of law and the proceedings of magistrates ; and 
this judiciary character of the act of pardon is 
also confirmed by the relation of the parties to 
each other, as it is constantly exhibited in Scrip- 
ture. God is an offended sovereign: man is 
an offending subject. He has offended against 
public law, not against private obligations; 



CH. XXIII.] 

and the act therefore by which he is relieved 
from the penalty must be magisterial and regal. 
It is also a further confirmation, that in this 
process Christ is represented as a public Medi- 
ator and Advocate. 

The importance of acquiring and maintain- 
ing this simple and distinct view of justification, 
that it is the remission of sins, as stated in the 
passages above quoted, will appear from the 
following considerations : 

1. We are taught that pardon of sin is not 
an act of prerogative, done above law ; but a 
judicial process, done consistently with law. For 
in this process there are three parties : God, as 
Sovereign; "Who shall lay any thing to the 
charge of God's elect ? it is God that justifieth : 
who is he that condemneth ?" Christ, as Ad- 
vocate: not defending the guilty, but interced- 
ing for them : " It is Christ that died, yea, rather, 
that is risen again, who is even at the right 
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for 
us." Rom. viii. 33, 34. "And if any man sin, 
we have an Advocate with the Father." 1 John 
ii. 1. The third party is man, who is, by his 
own confession, "guilty," "a sinner," "un- 
godly;" for repentance in all cases precedes this 
remission of sins, and it both supposes and con- 
fesses offence and desert of punishment. God is 
Judge in this process, not, however, as it has 
been well expressed, "by the law of creation 
and of works, but by the law of redemption and 
grace. Not as merely just, though just; but 
as merciful. Not as merciful in general, and 
ex nuda voluntate, without any respect had to 
satisfaction ; but as propitiated by the blood of 
Christ, and having accepted the propitiation 
made by his blood. Not merely propitiated by 
his blood, but moved by his intercession, which 
he makes as our Advocate in heaven : not only 
pleading the propitiation made and accepted, but 
the repentance and faith of the sinner, and the 
promise of the Judge before whom he pleads." 
(Lawson's Theo-Politica.) Thus, as pardon or 
justification does not take place but upon pro- 
pitiation, the mediation and intercession of a 
third party, and on the condition on the part of 
tho guilty, not only of repentance, but of " faith" 
in Christ's "blood," which, as before established, 
means faith in his sacrificial death, it is not an 
act of mere mercy, or of prerogative ; but one 
which consists with a righteous government, 
and proceeds on grounds which secure the honors 
of the Divine justice. 

2. We arc thus taught that justification has 
respect to particular individuals, and is to be 
distinguished from "that gracious constitution 
of God, by which, for tho sake of Jesus Christ, 
he so far delivers all mankind from the guilt 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



479 



of Adam's sin, as to place them, notwithstand- 
ing their natural connection with the fallen pro- 
genitor of the human race, in a salvable state. 
Justification is a blessing of a much higher and 
more perfect character, and is not common to 
the human race at large, but experienced by a 
certain description of persons in particular." 
(Bunting's Sermon on Justification.) Thus some 
of our older divines properly distinguish be- 
tween sententia legis and senteniia judicis, that is, 
between legislation and judgment — between the 
constitution, whatever it may be, under which 
the sovereign decides, whether it be rigidly just 
or softened by mercy, and his decisions in his 
regal and judicial capacity themselves. Justi- 
fication is, therefore, a decision under a gracious 
legislation, "the law of faith;" but not this 
legislation itself. " For if it be an act of legisla- 
tion, it is then only promise, and that looks to- 
ward none in particular ; but to all to whom the 
promise is made, in general, and presupposeth a 
condition to be performed. But justification 
presupposeth a particular person, a particular 
cause, a condition performed, and the perform- 
ance, as already past, pleaded ; and the decision 
proceeds accordingly." (Lawson's Theo-Poli- 
tica.) Justification becomes, therefore, a sub- 
ject of personal concern, personal prayer, and 
personal seeking, and is to be personally expe- 
rienced; nor can any one be safe in trusting 
to that general gracious constitution under which 
he is placed by the mercy of God in Christ, since 
that is established in order to the personal and 
particular justification of those who believe, but 
must not be confounded with it. 

3. Justification being a sentence of pardon, 
the Antinomian notion of eternal justification 
becomes a manifest absurdity. For if it be a 
sentence, a decision on the case of the offender, 
it must take place in time ; for that is not a 
sentence which is conceived in the breast of the 
Judge. A sentence is pronounced ; and a sen- 
tence pronounced and declared from eternity, 
before man was created, when no sin had been 
committed, no law published, no Saviour pro 
mised, no faith exercised, when, in a word, no 
being existed but God himself, is not only ab- 
surd, but impossible, for it would have been a 
decision declared to none, and therefore not de- 
clared at all ; and if, as they say, the sentence 
was passed in eternity, but manifested in time, 
it might from thence be as rightly argued that 
the world was created from eternity, and that 
the work of creation in tho beginning of time 
was only a manifestation of that which was from 
everlasting. It is the guilty -who are pardoned — 
"he justifieth the ungodly:" guilt, therefore, 
precedes pardon : while that remains, so far are 



480 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



any from being justified, that they are tinder 
"wrath," in a state of "condemnation," with 
which a state of justification cannot consist, 
for the contradiction is palpable ; so that the ad- 
vocates of this wild notion must either give up 
justification in eternity, or a state of condemna- 
tion in time. If they hold the former, they 
contradict common sense : if they deny the latter, 
they deny the Scriptures. 

4. Justification being the pardon of sin, this 
view of the doctrine guards us against the 
notion that it is an act of God by which we are 
made actually just and righteous. "This is 
sanctification, which is, indeed, the immediate 
fruit of justification; but, nevertheless, is a 
distinct gift of God, and of a totally different 
nature. The one implies what God does for us 
through his Son : the other, what God works in 
us by his Spirit. So that, although some rare 
instances may be found wherein the terms justi- 
fied and justification are used in so wide a sense 
as to include sanctification also, yet in general 
use they are sufficiently distinguished from each 
other both by St. Paul and the other inspired 
writers." — Wesley's Sermons. 

5. Justification being the pardon of sin by 
judicial sentence of the offended Majesty of 
heaven, under a gracious constitution, the term 
affords no ground for the notion that it im- 
ports the imputation or accounting to us the 
active and passive righteousness of Christ, so 
as to make us both relatively and positively 
righteous. 

On this subject, which has been fruitful of 
controversy, our remarks must be somewhat more 
extended. 

The notion that justification includes not only 
the pardon of sin, but the imputation to us of 
Christ's active personal righteousness, though 
usually held only by Calvinists, has not been 
received by all divines of this class; but, on 
the contrary, by some of them, both in ancient 
nnd modern times, it has been very strenuously 
opposed, as well as by the advocates of that 
more moderate scheme of election defended by 
Cameron in France, and by Baxter in England. 
Even Calvin himself has said nothing on this 
subject, but what Arminius, in his Declaration 
before the States of Holland, declares his readi- 
ness to subscribe to ; and Mr. Wesley, in much 
the same view of the subject as Arminius, admits 
the doctrine of the imputation of the righteous- 
ness of Christ to us upon our believing, provided 
it be soberly interpreted. 

There are, in fact, three opinions on this 
subject, which it is necessary to distinguish in 
order to obtain clear views of the controversy. 

The first is a part of the high Calvinistic j 



[part lt. 

scheme, and lies at the foundation of Antino- 
mianism, and is, in consequence, violently advo- 
cated by those who adopt that gross corruption 
of Christian faith. It is that Christ so repre- 
sented the elect that his righteousness is imputed 
to us as ours : as if we ourselves had been what 
he was, that is, perfectly obedient to the law 
of God, and had done what he did as perfectly 
righteous. 

The first objection to this opinion is, that it 
is nowhere stated in Scripture that Christ's per- 
sonal righteousness is imputed to us. Not a 
text can be found which contains any enuncia- 
tion of this doctrine ; and those which are 
adduced, such as "the Lord our righteousness," 
and " Christ who is made unto us righteousness," 
are obviously pressed into the service of this 
scheme by a paraphrastic interpretation, for 
which there is no authority in any other passages 
which speak of our redemption. But to these texts 
we shall return in the sequel. 

2. The notion here attached to Christ's repre- 
senting us is wholly gratuitous. In a limited 
sense it is true that Christ represented us : that 
is, suffered in our stead, that we might not 
suffer; "but not absolutely as our delegate," 
says Baxter, justly: "our persons did not, in a 
law sense, do in and by Christ what he did, 
or possess the habits which he possessed, or 
suffer what he suffered." (Gospel Defended.) 
The Scripture doctrine is, indeed, just the con- 
trary. It is never said that we suffered in 
Christ, but that he suffered for us ; so also it is 
never taught that we obeyed in Christ, but that, 
through his entire obedience to a course of sub- 
jection and suffering, ending in his death, our 
disobedience is forgiven. 

8. Nor is there any Weight in the argument 
that as our sins were accounted his, so his 
righteousness is accounted ours. Our sins were 
never so accounted Christ's as that he did them, 
and so justly suffered for them. This is a 
monstrous notion, which has been sometimes 
pushed to the verge of blasphemy. Our trans- 
gressions are never said to have been imputed to 
him in the fact, but only that they were laid upon 
him in the penalty. To be God's "beloved Son 
in whom he was always well pleased," and to be 
reckoned, imputed, accounted a sinner, de facto, 
are manifest contradictions. 

4. This whole doctrine of the imputation of 
Christ's personal moral obedience to believers, 
as their own personal moral obedience, involves 
a fiction and impossibility inconsistent with the 
Divine attributes. " The judgment of the all- 
wise God is always according to truth ; neither 
can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom to 
think that I am innocent, to judge that I am 






CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



481 



righteous or holy, because another is so. He 
can no more confound me with Christ than with 
David or Abraham." (Wesley.) But a con- 
tradiction is involved in another view. If what 
our Lord was and did is to be accounted to us 
in the sense just given, then we must be ac- 
counted never to have sinned, because Christ 
never sinned, and yet we must ask for pardon, 
though we are accounted from birth to death to 
have fulfilled God's law in Christ; or if they 
should say that when we ask for pardon we ask 
only for a revelation to us of our eternal justi- 
fication or pardon, the matter is not altered, for 
what need is there of pardon, in time or eternity, 
if we are accounted to have perfectly obeyed 
God's holy law ; and why should we be accounted 
also to have suffered, in Christ, the penalty of 
sins which we are accounted never to have com- 
mitted ? 

5. Another objection to the accounting of 
Christ's personal acts as done by us is, that they 
were of a loftier character than can be supposed 
capable of being accounted the acts of mere crea- 
tures ; that, in one eminent instance, neither the 
act could be required of us, nor the imputation of 
the act be made to us ; and, in other respects, and 
as to particular duties, Christ's personal obedience 
is deficient, and cannot be therefore reckoned to 
our account. For the first, Christ was God and 
man united in one person — a circumstance which 
gave a peculiar character of fulness and perfec- 
tion to his obedience, which not even man, in his 
state of innocence, can be supposed capable of 
rendering. " He, then, that assumeth this right- 
eousness to himself," says Goodwin, "and appa- 
relleth himself with it, represents himself before 
God, not in the habit of a just or righteous man, 
but in the glorious attire of the great Mediator 
of the world, whose righteousness hath heights 
and depths in it, a length and breadth which in- 
finitely exceed the proportions of all men what- 
ever. Now, then, for a silly worm to take this 
robe of immeasurable majesty upon him, and to 
conceit himself as great in holiness and right- 
eousness as Jesus Christ, (for that is the spirit 
that rules in this opinion, to teach men to assume 
all that Christ did unto themselves, and that in 
no other way, nor upon any lower terms, than as 
if themselves had personally done it,) whether 
this be right I leave to sober men to consider." 
[Treatise on Justification.) For the second, I re- 
fer to our Lord's baptism by John. His submis- 
sion to this ordinance was a part of his personal 
righteousness, and it is strongly marked as such 
in I) is own words addressed to John, " Suffer it 
to he so now, for thus it bocometh us to fulfil all 
riyhUoumcss." But no man now is bound to sub- 
mit to the baptism of John, and the righteous- 
31 



ness of doing so, whether personally or by impu- 
tation, is superfluous. This may also be applied 
to many other of the acts of Christ : they were 
never obligatory upon us, and their imputation 
to us is impossible or unnecessary. For the third 
case, the personal obedience of Christ is, as to 
particular acts, deficient, and our condition could 
not, therefore, be provided for by this imputa- 
tion. Suppose us guilty of violating the paternal 
or the conjugal duties, the duties of servants, or 
of magistrates, with many others, this theory is, 
that we are justified by the imputation of Christ's 
personal acts of righteousness to us, and that they 
are reckoned to us, as though we had ourselves 
performed them. But our Lord, never having 
stood in any of these relations, never acquired a 
personal righteousness of this kind to be reckoned 
as done by us. That which never was done by 
Christ cannot be imputed, and so it would follow 
that we can never be forgiven such delinquencies. 
If it be said that the imputation of particular 
acts is not necessary, but that it is sufficient if 
men have a righteousness imputed to them which 
is equivalent to them, it is answered, the strict 
and peremptory nature of law knows nothing of 
this doctrine of the equivalency of one act to an- 
other. The suffering of an unobliged substitute, 
where such a provision is admitted, may be an 
equivalent to the suffering of the offender ; but 
one course of duties cannot be accepted in the 
place of another when justification is placed on 
the ground of the actual fulfilment of the law by 
a delegate in the place of the delinquent, which 
is the ground on which the doctrine of the impu- 
tation of Christ's active righteousness for justi- 
fication places it. The law must exact conformity 
to all its precepts in their place and order, and 
he that "offends in one is guilty of all." 

6. A crowning and most fatal objection is, that 
this doctrine shifts the meritorious cause of 
man's justification from Christ's "obedience unto 
death," where the Scriptures place it, to Christ's 
active obedience to the precepts of the law ; and 
leaves no rational account of the reason of 
Christ's vicarious sufferings. To his "blood" 
the New Testament writers ascribe our redemp- 
tion, and "faith in his blood" is as clearly held 
out as the instrumental cause of our justification; 
but by this doctrine the attention and hopo of 
men are perversely turned away from his sacri- 
ficial death to his holy life, which, though neces- 
sary, both as an example to us, and also so to 
qualify his sacrifice that his blood should be that 
of "a lamb without spot," is nowhere repre- 
sented as that on account of which men arc 
pardoned. 

Biscator, though a Calvinist, thus treats the 
sulyject in scholastic form: "It" our sins have 



482 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part II. 



been expiated by the obedience of the life of 
Christ, either a perfect expiation has been thus 
made for all of them, or an imperfect one for 
some of them. The first cannot be asserted, for 
then it -would follow that Christ had died in vain ; 
for as he died to expiate our sins, he would not 
have accounted it necessary to offer such an ex- 
piation for them, if they had been already ex- 
piated by the obedience of his life. And the 
latter cannot be maintained, because Christ has 
yielded perfect obedience to the law of God ; 
wherefore, if he have performed that for the 
expiation of our sins, he must necessarily, 
through that obedience, have expiated all of them 
perfectly.'''' Again: "If Christ, by the obedience 
of his life, had rendered satisfaction to God for 
our sins, it would follow, as a consequence, that 
God is unjust, who has made an additional de- 
mand to receive satisfaction through the obedi- 
ence of death, and thus required to have the same 
debt paid twice." Again: "If Christ, by his 
obedience to the law, has merited for us the for- 
giveness of sins, the consequence will be, that 
the remission of sins was effected without the 
shedding of blood ; but without shedding of blood 
no remission is effected, as appears from Heb. 
ix. 22 ; therefore Christ has not merited for us 
the remission of sins by the obedience which he 
performed to the law." 1 To the same effect, also, 
is a passage in Goodwin's Treatise on Justifica- 
tion, written while he was yet a Calvinist. "If 
men be as righteous as Christ was in his life, 
there was no more necessity of his death for 
them, than there was either of his own death, 
or the death of any other, for himself. If we 
were perfectly just or righteous in him, or with 
him, in his life, then the just would not have died 
for the unjust, but he would have died for the 
just, for whom there was no necessity he should 
die. This reason the apostle expressly delivers, 
Gal. ii. 21 : 'If righteousness be by the law, 
then Christ died in vain.' I desire the impartial 
reader to observe narrowly the force of this in- 
ference made by the Holy Ghost. If righteous- 
ness, or justification, be by the law, then Christ 
died in vain. Men cannot here betake themselves 
to their wonted refuge, to say, that by the law 
is to be understood the works of the law as per- 
formed by a man's self in person. For if by 
the word law in this place we understand the 
works of the law as performed by Christ, the 
consequence will rise up with the greater strength 
against them. If righteousness were by the 
works of the law, as performed by Christ, that 
is, if the imputation of them were our complete 
righteousness, the death of Christ for us had 

i See note in Nichols's translation of the works of Armi- 
nius, vol. i. p. 634. 



been in vain, because the righteousness of his 
life imputed had been a sufficient and complete 
righteousness for us." 

The same writer, also, powerfully argues 
against the same doctrine from its confounding 
the two covenants of works and grace. "It is 
true, many that hold the way of imputation are 
nothing ashamed of this consequent, the con- 
founding the two covenants of God with men, 
that of works with that of grace. These con- 
ceive that God never made more covenants than 
one with man ; and that the gospel is nothing 
else but a gracious aid from God to help man to 
perform the covenant of works : so that the life 
and salvation which are said to come by Christ, 
in no other sense come by him, but as he fulfilled 
that law of works for man which men themselves 
were not able to fulfil ; and by imputation, as by 
a deed of gift, he makes over his perfect obedi- 
ence and fulfilling of the law to those that be- 
lieve ; so that they, in right of this perfect obe- 
dience, made theirs by imputation, come to inherit 
life and salvation, according to the strict tenor 
of the covenant of works — 'Do this and live.' 

"But men may as well say, there was no se- 
cond Adam, really differing from the first ; or 
that the spirit of bondage is the same with the 
Spirit of adoption. If the second covenant of 
grace were implicitly contained in the first, then 
the meaning of the first covenant, conceived in 
those words, ' Do this and live,' must be, Do 
this, either by thyself, or by another, and live. 
There is no other way to reduce them to the same 
covenant. 

"Again, if the first and second covenant were 
in substance the same, then must the conditions 
in both be the same ; for the conditions in a 
covenant are as essential a part of it as any other 
belonging to it. Though there be the same 
parties covenanting, and the same things cove- 
nanted for, yet if there be new articles of agree- 
ment, it is really another covenant. Now if the 
conditions be the same in both those covenants, 
then, to do this, and to believe, faith and works, are 
the same ; whereas the Scripture, from place to 
place, makes the most irreconcilable opposition 
between them. But some, being shy of this con- 
sequence, hold the imputation of Christ's right- 
eousness, (in the sense opposed,) and yet demur 
upon an identity of the two covenants. Where- 
fore, to prove it, I thus reason : Where the parties 
covenanting are the same, and the things cove- 
nanted for the same, and the conditions the same, 
there the covenants are the same. But if the 
righteousness of the law imputed to us be the 
condition of the new covenant, all the three, 
persons, things, conditions, are the same. There- 
fore the two covenants, first and second, the old 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



483 



and the new, are the same ; because as to the 
parties covenanting, and the things covenanted 
for, it is agreed, on both sides, they are the 
same. 

"If it be objected that the righteousness of 
the law imputed from another, and wrought by 
a man's self, are two different conditions; and 
that, therefore, it doth not follow that the cove- 
nants are the same : to this I answer, the sub- 
stance of the agreement will be found the same 
notwithstanding : the works or righteousness of 
the law are the same, by whomsoever wrought. 
If Adam had fulfilled the law, as Christ did, 
he had been justified by the same righteousness 
wherewith Christ himself was righteous. If it 
be said that imputation in the second covenant, 
which was not in the first, makes a difference 
in the condition, I answer: 1. Imputation of 
works, or of righteousness, is not the condition 
of the new covenant, but believing. If imputa- 
tion were the condition, then the whole covenant 
would lie upon God, and nothing be required 
on the creature's part ; for imputation is an act 
of God, not of men. 2. If it were granted that 
the righteousness, or the works of the law im- 
puted from Christ, were that whereby we are 
justified, yet they must justify, not as imputed, 
but as righteousness, or works of the law. 
Therefore imputation makes no difference in this 
respect. Imputation can be no part of that 
righteousness by which we are justified, because 
it is no conformity with any law, nor with any 
part or branch of any law that man was ever 
bound to keep. Therefore it can be no part of 
that righteousness by which he is justified. So 
that the condition of both covenants will be 
found the same, (and consequently both cove- 
nants the same,) if justification be maintained 
by the righteousness of Christ imputed." 

To the work last quoted the reader may be 
referred as a complete treatise on the subject, 
and a most masterly refutation of a notion 
which he and other Calvinistic divines, in dif- 
ferent ages, could not fail to perceive was most 
delusive to the souls of men, directly destructive 
of moral obedience, and not less so of the Chris- 
tian doctrine of the atonement of Christ, and 
justification by "faith in his blood." It is on 
this ground that men who turn the grace of 
God into licentiousness contend that, being in- 
vested with the perfect righteoxisness of Christ, 
God cannot see any sin in them ; and, indeed, 
upon their own principles, they reason conclu- 
sively. Justice has not to do with them, but 
with Christ: it demands perfect obedience, and 
Christ has rendered that perfect obedience for 
them, and what he did is always accounted as 
done by them. They are, therefore, under no 



real obligation of obedience : they can fear no 
penal consequences from disobedience ; and a 
: course of the most flagrant vice may consist 
with an entire confidence in the indefeasible 
favor of God, with the profession of sonship and 
discipleship, and the hope of heaven. These 
; notions many shamelessly avow ; and they have 
| been too much encouraged in their fatal creed, 
by those who have held the same system sub- 
stantially, though they abhor the bold conclu- 
J sions which the open Antinomian would draw 
from it. 

The doctrine on which the above remarks 
have been made, is the first of the three opinions 
which have been held on the subject of the 
imputation of righteousness in our justification. 
The second is the opinion of Calvin himself, and 
those of his followers who have not refined so 
much upon the scheme of their master as others, 
and with them many Arminians have also, in 
some respects, agreed: not that they have ap- 
proved the terms in which this opinion is usually 
expressed ; but because they have thought it, 
under a certain interpretation, right, and one 
which would allow them, for the sake of peace, 
to use either the phrase, "the imputation of the 
righteousness of Christ," or "the imputation of 
faith for righteousness," which latter they con- 
sider more scriptural, and therefore interpret the 
former so as to be consistent with it. 

The sentiments of Calvin on this subject may 
be collected from the following passages in the 
third book of his Institutes : 

"We simply explain justification to be an 
acceptance, by which God receives us into his 
favor and esteems us as righteous persons, and 
we say it consists in the remission of sins and 
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ." 
"He must certainly be destitute of a righteous- 
ness of his own, who is taught to seek it out of 
himself. This is most clearly asserted by the 
apostle when he says, ' He hath made him to be 
sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be 
made the righteousness of God in him.' We see 
that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in 
Christ. 'As by one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one 
shall many be made righteous.' What is placing 
our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but 
asserting that we are accounted righteous only 
because his obedience is accepted for us as if it 
were our own ?" 

In these passages, the wording of which seems 
at first sight to favor the opinion above refuted, 
there is, however, this marked difference, that 
there is no separation made between the active 
and passive righteousness of Christ —his obedi- 
ence to the precepts of the moral law, and his 



4S- 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



obedience to its penalty ; so that one is imputed 
in our justification for one purpose, and the 
other for another : one to take the place of our 
obligation to obey, the other of our obligation 
to suffer; but the obedience of Christ is con- 
sidered as one, as his holy life and sacrificial 
death considered together, and forming that 
righteousness of Christ -which, being imputed to 
us, we are "reputed righteous before God, and 
not of ourselves." This is further confirmed 
by the strenuous manner in which Calvin proves 
that justification is simply the remission or 
non-imputation of sin: "Whom, therefore, the 
Lord receives into fellowship with him, him he 
is said to justify, because he cannot receive any 
one into fellowship with himself without making 
him from a sinner to be a righteous person. 
This is accomplished by the remission of sins. 
For if they whom the Lord hath reconciled to 
himself be judged according to their works, 
they will still be found actually sinners, who, 
notwithstanding, must be absolved and free from 
sin. It appears, then, that those whom God 
receives, are made righteous no otherwise than 
as they are purified by being cleansed from all 
their defilements by the remission of sins; so 
that such a righteousness may, in one word, be 
denominated a remission of sins. Both these 
points are fully established by the language of 
Paul, which I have already cited: 'God was 
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not 
imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath 
committed unto us the word of reconciliation.' 
Then he adds, < He hath made him to be sin for 
us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the 
righteousness of God in him.' The terms righte- 
ousness and reconciliation are here used by St. 
Paul indiscriminately, to teach us that they are 
mutually comprehended in each other. And he 
states the manner of obtaining this righteous- 
ness to consist in our transgressions not being 
imputed to us ; wherefore we can no longer 
doubt how God justifies, when we hear that he 
reconciles us to himself by not imputing our 
sins to us." " So Paul, in preaching at Antioch, 
says, * Through this man is preached unto you 
the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that be- 
lieve are justified.' The apostle thus connects 
'forgiveness of sins' with ■ justification,' to show 
that they are identically the same." — Institutes, 
lib. 3, cap. xi. 

This simple notion of justification as the re- 
mission of sins could not have been maintained 
by Calvin had he held the notion of a distinct 
imputation of Christ's active righteousness ; for 
it has always followed from that notion that they 
who have held it represent justification as con- 
sisting of two parts — first, the forgiveness of 



sins, and then the imputation of Christ's moral 
obedience, so that he who is forgiven may be 
considered personally righteous, and thus, when 
both meet, he is justified. 1 

The view taken by Calvin of the imputation 
of Christ's righteousness in justification, is ob- 
viously that the righteousness of Christ, that is, 
his entire obedience to the will of his Father 
both in doing and suffering, is, as he says, 
"accepted for us, as though it were our own;" 
so that, in virtue of it upon our believing, we 
are accounted righteous, not personally, but by 
the remission or non-imputation of our sins. 
Thus, he observes on Acts xiii. 38, 39: "The 
justification which we have by Christ in the 
gospel, is not a justification with righteousness, 
properly so called, but a justification from sin, 
and from the guilt of sin and condemnation due 
to it. So when Christ said to men and women 
in the gospel, ' Thy sins are forgiven thee,' then 
he justified them : the forgiveness of their sins 
was their justification." 

Calvin, however, like many of his followers, 
who adopt no views on this subject substantially 
different from their master, uses figurative terms 
and phrases, which somewhat obscure his real 
meaning, and give much countenance to the 
Antinomian doctrine ; but then, so little, it has 
been thought, can be objected to the opinion 
of Calvin, in the article of imputed righteous- 
ness, in the main, that many divines, opposed 
to the Calvinian theory generally, have not 
hesitated, in substance, to assent to it, reserving 
to themselves some liberty in the use of the terms 
in which it is often enveloped, either to modify, 
explain, or reject them. 

Thus Arminius : — "I believe that sinners are 
accounted righteous solely by the obedience 
of Christ ; and that the righteousness of Christ 
is the only meritorious cause on account of 
which God pardons the sins of believers, and 
reckons them as righteous as if they had per- 
fectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes 
the righteousness of Christ to none except be- 
lievers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be 
well and properly said, to a man who believes, 
faith is imputed for righteousness, through 
grace, because God hath set forth his Son Jesus 
Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in his 
blood. Whatever interpretation may be put 
upon these expressions, none of our divines 
blame Calvin, or consider him to be heterodox 
on this point ; yet my opinion is not so widely 
different from his as to prevent me employing 

i '•' To be released from the damnatory sentence is one 
thing : to be treated as a righteons person is evidently an- 
other. - ' — Heryet's Htcron and Jspasio. 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



485 



the signature of my own hand in subscribing 
to those things which he has delivered on this 
subject, in the third book of his Institutes." — 
Nichols's Arminius. 

So also Mr. Wesley, in his sermon entitled, 
"The Lord, our Righteousness," almost repeats 
Arminius' s words ; but though these eminent 
divines seem to agree substantially with Calvin, 
it is clear that, in their interpretation of the 
phrase, the "imputed righteousness of Christ," 
he would not entirely follow them. "As the 
active and passive righteousness of Christ were 
never in fact separated from each other, so we 
never need separate them at all. It is with 
regard to both these conjointly that Jesus is 
called < the Lord our righteousness.' But when 
is this righteousness imputed ? When they be- 
lieve. In that very hour the righteousness of 
Christ is theirs. It is imputed to every one that 
believes, as soon as he believes. But in what 
sense is this righteousness imputed to believers ? 
In this : all believers are forgiven and accepted, 
not for the sake of any thing in them, or of 
any thing that ever was, that is, or ever can be 
done by them, but wholly for the sake of what 
Christ hath done and suffered for them. But, 
perhaps, some will affirm that faith is imputed 
to us for righteousness. St. Paul affirms this, 
therefore I affirm it too. Faith is imputed for 
righteousness to every believer, namely, faith in 
the righteousness of Christ ; but this is exactly 
the same thing which has been said before ; for 
by that expression I mean neither more nor less 
than that we are justified by faith, not by works, 
or that every believer is forgiven and accepted 
merely for the sake of what Christ had done and 
suffered." — Sermons. 

In this sermon, which is one of peace, one in 
which he shows how near he was willing to 
approach those who held the doctrine of Calvin 
on this subject, the author justly observes that 
the terms themselves in which it is often ex- 
pressed are liable to abuse, and intimates that 
they had better be dispensed with. This every 
one must feel ; for it is clear that such figurative 
expressions, as being clothed with the righteous- 
ness of Christ, and appearing before God as 
invested in it, so that no fault can be laid to our 
charge, are modes of speech which, though 
used by Calvin and his followers of the mode- 
rate school, and by some evangelical Arminians, 
who mainly agree with them on the subject of 
man's justification, are much more appropriate 
to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's 
active righteousness, as held by the higher Cal- 
vinists, and by Antinomians, than to any other. 
The truth of the case is, that tho imputation of 
Christ's righteousness is held by such Calvinists 



in a proper sense, by evangelical Arminians in 
an improper or accommodated sense ; and that 
Calvin and his real followers, though nearer to 
the latter than the former, do not fully agree 
with either. If the same phrases, therefore, 
be used, they are certainly understood in dif- 
ferent senses, or, by one party at least, with 
limitations ; and if it can be shown that neither 
is the "imputation of Christ's righteousness" in 
any good sense expressed or implied in Scrip- 
ture, nor that the phrases, being clothed and 
invested with his righteousness, are used with 
any reference to justification, it seems pre- 
ferable, at least when we are investigating truth, 
to discard them at once, and fully to bring out 
the testimony of Scripture on the doctrine of im- 
putation. 

The question then will be, not whether the 
imputation of Christ's righteousness is to be 
taken in the sense of the Antinomians, which 
has been sufficiently refuted ; but whether there 
is any Scripture authority for the imputation of 
Christ's righteousness as it is understood by 
Calvin, and admitted, though with some hesi- 
tancy, and with explanations, by Arminius and 
some others. 

With Calvin the notion of imputation seems to 
be that the righteousness of Christ, that is, 
his entire obedience to the will of his Father, 
both in doing and suffering, is, upon our be- 
lieving, imputed or accounted to us, or accepted 
for us, "as though it were our own." From 
which we may conclude that he admitted some 
kind of transfer of the righteousness of Christ 
to our account, and that believers are considered 
so to be in Christ, as that he should answer for 
them in law, and plead his righteousness in 
default of theirs. All this, we grant, is capable 
of being interpreted to a good and scriptural 
sense ; but it is also capable of a contrary one. 
The opinion of some professedly Calvinistic di- 
vines, of Baxter and his followers, and of the 
majority of evangelical Arminians, is, as Baxter 
well expresses it, that Christ's righteousness is 
imputed to us in the sense "of its being ac- 
counted of God the valuable consideration, satis- 
faction, and merit, (attaining God's ends,) for 
which Ave are (when we consent to the covenant 
of grace) forgiven and justified, against the con- 
demning sentence of the law of innocency, and 
accounted and accepted of God to grace and 
glory." [Breviate of Controversies.) So also 
Goodwin: "If we take the phrase of imputing 
Christ's righteousness improperly, namely, for 
the bestowing, as it were, of the righteousness 
of Christ, including his obedience, as well pas- 
sive as active, in the return of it, i. o., in the 
privileges, blessings, and benefits purchased by 



486 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



it, so a believer may be said to be justified by 
the righteousness of Christ imputed. But then 
the meaning can be no more than this: God 
justifies a believer for the sake of Christ's righte- 
ousness, and not for any righteousness of his 
own. Such an imputation of the righteousness 
of Christ as this, is no way denied or ques- 
tioned." — On Justification. 

Between these opinions as to the imputation 
of the righteousness of Christ it will be seen 
that there is a manifest difference, which differ- 
ence arises from the different senses in which 
the term imputation is taken. The latter takes 
it in the sense of accounting or allowing to the 
believer the benefit of the righteousness of 
Christ; the other in the sense of reckoning or 
accounting the righteousness of Christ as ours : 
that is, what he did and suffered is regarded as 
done and suffered by us. "It is accepted," 
says Calvin, "as though it were our own;" so 
that though Calvin does not divide the active 
and passive obedience of Christ, nor make justi- 
fication any thing more than the remission of 
sin, yet his opinion easily slides into the Anti- 
nomian notion, and lays itself open to several of 
the same objections, and especially to this, that 
it involves the same kind of fiction, that what 
Christ did or suffered, is, in any sense what- 
ever, considered by him who knows all things 
as they are, as being done or suffered by any 
other person than by him who did or suffered it 
in fact. 

For this notion, that the righteousness of 
Christ is so imputed as to be accounted our own, 
there is no warrant in the word of God ; and a 
slight examination of those passages which are 
indifferently adduced to support either the Anti- 
nomian or the Calvinistic view of the subject, will 
suffice to demonstrate this. 

Psalm xxxii. 1: "Blessed is the man whose 
transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." 
The covering of sin here spoken of, is by some 
considered to be the investment of the sinner 
with the righteousness or obedience of Christ. 
But this is entirely gratuitous ; for the forgive- 
ness of sin, even by the legal atonements, is 
called, according to the Hebrew idiom, (though 
another verb is used,) to cover sin ; and the latter 
part of the sentence is clearly a parallelism to 
the former. This is the interpretation of Luther, 
and of Calvin himself. To forgive sin, to cover 
sin, and not to impute sin, are in this psalm all 
phrases obviously of the same import, and no 
other kind of imputation but the non-imputation 
of sin is mentioned in it. And, indeed, the 
passage will not serve the purpose of the advo- 
cates of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's 
active righteousness, on their own principles; 



for sin cannot be covered by the imputation of 
Christ's active righteousness, since they hold 
that it is taken away by the imputation of his 
death, and that the office of Christ's active righte- 
ousness is not to take away sin, but to render 
us personally and positively holy by imputation 
and the fiction of a transfer. 

Jer. xxiii. 6, and xxxiii. 16 : "And this is the 
name whereby he shall be called, The Lord 
our Righteousness." This passage also proves 
nothing to the point, for it is neither said that 
the righteousness of the Lord shall be our 
righteousness, nor that it shall be imputed to us 
for righteousness, but simply that the name by 
which he shall be called, or acknowledged, shall 
be the Lord our Righteousness, that is, the 
Author and Procurer of our righteousness or 
justification before God. So he is said to be 
"the Resurrection," "our Life," "our Peace," 
etc., as the author of these blessings ; for who 
ever dreamt that Christ is the life, the resurrec- 
tion, the peace of his people by imputation ? or 
that we live by being accounted to live in him, or 
are raised from the dead by being accounted to 
have risen in him ? 

"Some," says Goodwin, "have digged for 
the treasure of imputation in Isaiah xlv. 24: 
' Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righte- 
ousness and strength.' But, first, neither is 
there here the least breathing of that imputation 
so much wandered after, nor do I find any in- 
timation given of any such business by any 
sound expositor. Secondly, the plain and direct 
meaning of the place is, that when God should 
communicate the knowledge of himself, in his 
Son, to the world, his people should have this 
sense of the means of their salvation and peace, 
that they receive them of the free grace of 
God, and not of themselves, or by the merit of 
their own righteousness. And Calvin's exposi- 
tion is to this effect: 'Because righteousness 
and strength are the two main points of our sal- 
vation, the faithful acknowledge God to be the 
author of both.'" 

With respect to all those passages which speak 
of the Jewish or Christian Churches, or their 
individual members being "clothed with gar- 
ments of salvation," "robes of righteousness," 
"fine linen, the righteousness of saints," or 
of "putting on Christ" — a class of texts on 
which, from their mere sound, the advocates of 
imputed righteousness ring so many changes — 
the use which is thus made of them shows 
either great inattention to the context, or great 
ignorance of the principles of criticism: the 
former, because the context will show that either 
those passages relate to temporal deliverances, 
and external blessings ; or else, not to justifica- 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



487 



tion, but to habitual and practical sanctification, 
and to the honors and rewards of the saints 
in glory: the latter, because nothing is more 
common in language than to represent good or 
evil habits by clean or filthy, by soiled or re- 
splendent vestments, by nakedness or by cloth- 
ing; and this is especially the case in the 
Hebrew language, because it was the custom of 
the Jews, by changing their garments, to express 
the changes in their condition. They put on 
sackcloth, or laid aside their upper robe, (which 
is, in Scripture style, called making themselves 
naked,) or rent their garments, when personal 
or national afflictions came upon them ; and 
they arrayed themselves in white and adorned 
apparel in seasons of festivity, and after great 
deliverances. In all these figurative expressions 
there is, however, nothing which countenances 
the notion that Christ's righteousness is a robe 
thrown upon sinful men, to hide from the eye 
of justice their natural squalidness and pollu- 
tion, and to give them confidence in the presence 
of God. No interpretation can be more fanciful 
and unfounded. 

Romans iii. 21, 22: "But now the righteous- 
ness of God, without the law, is manifested, be- 
ing witnessed by the law and the prophets, even 
the righteousness of God which is by the faith 
of Jesus Christ." The righteousness of God 
here is, by some, taken to signify the righteous- 
ness of Christ imputed to them that believe. 
But the very text makes it evident that by "the 
righteousness of God " the righteousness of the 
Father is meant, for he is distinguished from 
"Jesus Christ," mentioned immediately after- 
ward ; and by the righteousness of God, it is 
also plain that his rectoral justice in the admin- 
istration of pardon is meant, which, of course, 
is not thought capable of imputation. This is 
made indubitable by the verse which follows, 
" to declare at this time his righteousness, that he 
might be just, and the justifier of him which be- 
lieveth in Jesus." 

The phrase, the righteousness of God, in this 
and several other passages in St. Paul's writ- 
ings, obviously means God's righteous method 
of justifying sinners through the atonement of 
Christ, and, instrumentally, by faith. This is 
the grand peculiarity of the gospel scheme, the 
fulness at once of its love and its wisdom, that 
"the righteousness of God is manifested with- 
out law;" and that, without either an enforce- 
ment of the penalty of the violated law upon 
the pergonal offender, which would have cut 
him off from hope ; or without making his justi- 
fication to depend upon works of obedience to 
the law, (which was the only method of justifi- 
cation admitted by the Jews of St. Paul's day,) 



and which obedience was impossible, and there- 
fore hopeless ; he can yet, in perfect consistency 
with his justice and righteous administration, 
offer pardon to the guilty. No wonder, there- 
fore, that the apostle, who discourses professedly 
on this subject, should lay so great a stress upon 
it, and that his mind, always full of a subject so 
great and glorious, should so often advert to 
it incidentally, as well as in his regular dis- 
courses on the justification of man in the sight 
of God. Thus, he gives it as a reason why he 
was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, that 
"therein is the righteousness of God revealed 
from faith to faith ; as it is written, The just 
shall live by faith." Rom. i. 17. Thus, again, 
in contrasting God's method of justifying the 
ungodly with the error of the Jews, by whom 
justification was held to be the acquittal of the 
righteous or obedient, he says, " For they being 
ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about 
to establish their own righteousness, have not 
submitted themselves to the righteousness of 
God." Rom. x. 3. The same contrast we have 
in Phil. iii. 9: "Not having mine own righte- 
ousness, which is of the law, but that which is 
through the faith of Jesus Christ, the righteousness 
which is of God by faith." In all these pas- 
sages the righteousness of God manifestly signi- 
fies his righteous method of justifying them 
that believe in Christ. No reference at all is 
made to the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
ness to such persons, and much less is any dis- 
tinction set up between his active and passive 
righteousness. 

1 Cor. i. 30: "But of him are ye in Christ 
Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and 
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemp- 
tion." Here, also, to say that Christ is "made 
unto us righteousness," by imputation, is to in- 
vent, and not to interpret. This is clear, that he 
is made unto us righteousness only as he is 
made unto us "redemption;" so that if we are 
not redeemed by imputation, we are not justified 
by imputation. The meaning of the apostle is 
that Christ is made to us, by the appointment 
of God, the sole means of instruction, justifica- 
tion, sanctification, and eternal life. 

2 Cor. v. 21 : " For he hath made him to be 
sin for us, who knew no sin : that we might be 
made the righteousness of God in him." To be 
made sin, we have already shown, signifies to be 
made an offering for sin ; consequently, as no 
imputation of our sins to Christ is here men- 
tioned, thcro is no foundation for the notion 
that there is a reciprocal imputation of Christ's 
rightoousness to us. The text is wholly silent 
on this subject, for it is wholly gratuitous to 
say that wo are made the righteousness of tiod 



488 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



in or through Christ, by imputation or reckoning 
to us what he did or suffered as our acts or 
sufferings. The passages we have already ad- 
duced will explain the phrase, "the righteous- 
ness of God," in this place. This righteousness, 
with respect to our pardon, is God's righteous 
method of justifying, through the atonement of 
Christ; and our being made or becoming this 
righteousness of God in or by Christ, is our be- 
coming righteous persons through the pardon of 
our sins in this peculiar method, by renouncing 
our own righteousness, and by "submitting to 
this righteousness of God." 

Rom. v. 18, 19: "As by the offence of one 
judgment came upon all men to condemnation, 
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life. 
• For as by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall 
many be made righteous." That this passage, 
though generally depended upon in this contro- 
versy, as the most decisive in its evidence in 
favor of the doctrine of imputation, proves no- 
thing to the purpose, may be thus demonstrated. 
It proves nothing in favor of the imputation of 
Christ's active righteousness ; for, 

1. Here is nothing said of the active obedience 
of Christ, as distinguished from his obedient 
suffering, and which might lead us to attribute 
the free gift of justification to the former, rather 
than to the latter. 

2. If the apostle is supposed to speak here 
of the active obedience of Christ, as distin- 
guished from his sufferings, his death is of course 
excluded from the work of justification. But 
this cannot be allowed, because the apostle has 
intimated, in the same chapter, that we are "jus- 
tified by his blood," Rom. v. 9 ; and, therefore, 
it cannot be allowed that he is speaking of the 
active obedience of Christ, as distinguished from 
his passive. 

3. As the apostle has unequivocally decided 
that we are justified by the blood of Christ, 
or, in other words, "that we are justified through 
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom 
God hath set forth a propitiation, through faith 
in his blood," (a thing which the doctrine under 
examination supposes to be impossible,) there 
is reason to conclude that he speaks here of his 
passive rather than of his active obedience. 
"If, indeed, his willingness to suffer for our sins 
were never spoken of as an act of obedience, 
such an observation might have the appearance 
of a mere expedient to get rid of a difficulty. 
But if, on the other hand, this should prove to 
be the very spirit and letter of Scripture, the 
justness of it will be obvious. Hear, then, 
our Lord himself on this subject: 'Therefore 



[PART II. 

doth my Father love me, because I lay down my 
life, that I might take it again. No man taketh 
it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have 
power to lay it down, and I have power to take 
it again. This commandment have I received of 
my Father.' John x. 17, 18. This, then, was 
the commandment to which he rendered willing 
obedience, when he said, '0 my Father, if this 
cup may not pass away from me, except I drink 
it, thy will be done.' Matt. xxvi. 42. < The cup 
which my Father hath given me, shall I not 
drink it?' John xviii. 11. In conformity with 
this, the apostle applies to him the following 
words : ' Wherefore, when he cometh into the 
world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou 
wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. 
Then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, God. 
By (his performance of) which will we are sanc- 
tified through the offering of the body of Jesus 
Christ once for all.' Heb. x. 5, 9, 10. 'Being 
found in fashion as a man, (says St. Paul,) he 
became obedient unto death, even the death of 
the cross.' Phil. ii. 8. Such was his obedience, 
an obedience unto the death of the cross. And 
by this his obedience unto the death of the 
cross shall many be constituted righteous, or be 
justified. Where, then, is the imputation of his 
active obedience for justification?" — Hare on 
Justification. 

It proves nothing in favor of the imputation 
of Christ's righteousness considered as one, 
and including what he did and suffered, in the 
sense of its being reputed our righteousness, ' 
by transfer or by fiction of law. For though 
the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is 
supposed to be taught in this chapter, and the 
imputation of Christ's obedience, in one or other 
of the senses above given, is argued from this 
particular text, the examination of the subject 
will show that the right understanding of the 
imputation of Adam's sin wholly overthrows 
both the Ahtinomian and Calvinistic view of 
the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This 
argument is very ably developed by Good- 
win. 

"Because the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
posterity is frequently produced to prove the 
imputation of Christ's righteousness, I shall lay 
down, with as much plainness as I can, in 
what sense the Scriptures countenance that im- 
putation. The Scriptures own no other imputa- 
tion of Adam's sin to his posterity, than of 
Christ's righteousness to those that believe. 
The righteousness of Christ is imputed or given 
to those that believe, not in the letter or for- 
mality of it, but in blessings, privileges, and 
benefits purchased of God by the merit of it. So 
the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity, not 



en. xxiii.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



489 



\ 



in the letter and formality of it, (which is the 
imputation commonly urged,) but in the demerit 
of it, that is, in the curse or punishment due to 
it. Therefore, as concerning this imputation of 
Adam's sin, I answer, 

"First, the Scripture nowhere affirms, either 
the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or 
of the righteousness of Christ to those that be- 
lieve ; neither is such a manner of speaking 
any ways agreeable to the language of the Holy 
Ghost; for in the Scriptures, wheresoever the 
term imputing is used, it is only applied to or 
spoken of something of the same persons to 
whom the imputation is said to be made, and 
never, to my remembrance, to or of any thing 
of another's. So, Rom. iv. 3 : 'Abraham be- 
lieved God, and it was imputed to him for righte- 
ousness;' that is, his own believing was imputed 
to him, not another man's. So, verse 5, but ' to 
him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is 
imputed to him for righteousness.' So Psalm 
cvi. 30, 31 : Phineas stood up and executed 
judgment, and that' (act of his) 'was imputed 
to him for righteousness;' that is, received 
a testimony from God of being a righteous 
act. So again, 2 Cor. v. 19 : ' Not imputing 
their trespasses' (their own trespasses) 'unto 
them. ' 

"Secondly, When a thing is said simply to 
be imputed, as sin, folly, and so righteousness, 
the phrase is not to be taken concerning the 
bare acts of the things, as if (for example) to 
impute sin to a man signified this, to repute the 
man (to whom sin is imputed) to have committed 
a sinful act, or as if to impute folly were simply 
to charge a man to have done foolishly ; but 
when it is applied to things that are evil, and 
attributed to persons that have power over those 
to whom the imputation is made, it signifieth 
the charging the guilt of what is imputed upon 
the head of the person to whom the imputation 
is made, with an intent of inflicting some con- 
dign punishment upon him. So that to impute 
sin (in Scripture phrase) is to charge the guilt 
of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him 
for it. Thus, Rom. v. 13, sin is said 'not to be 
imputed where there is no law.' The meaning 
cannot be that the act which a man doth, 
whether there be a law or no law, should not be 
imputed to him. The law doth not make any 
act to be imputed or ascribed to a man which 
might not as well have been imputed without 
it. But the meaning is that there is no guilt 
charged by God upon men, nor any punishment 
inflicted for any thing done by them, but only 
by virtuo of the law prohibiting. In which 
respect the law is said to be the strength of sin, 
because it gives a condemning power against the 



doer, to that which otherwise would have had 
none. 1 Cor. xv. 56. So again, Job xxiv. 12, 
when it is said, ' God doth not lay folly to the 
charge of them (i. e., impute folly to them) 
that make the souls of the slain to cry out,' the 
meaning is, not that God doth not repute them 
to have committed the acts of oppression, or 
murder — for supposing they did such things, it 
is impossible but God should repute them to have 
done them — but that God doth not visibly charge 
the guilt of these sins upon them, or inflict pun- 
ishment for them. So, 2 Sam. xix. 19, when 
Shimei prayeth David not to impute wickedness 
unto him, his meaning is, not to desire David not 
to think he had done wickedly in railing upon 
him, (for himself confesseth this in the very 
next words,) but not to inflict the punishment 
which that wickedness deserved. So when David 
himself pronounceth the man blessed to whom the 
Lord imputeth not sin, his meaning is, not that 
there is any man whom the Lord would not re- 
pute to have committed those acts of sin which 
he has committed ; but that such are blessed on 
whom God will not charge the demerit of their 
sins in the punishment due to them. So yet 
again, (to forbear further citations,) 2 Cor. v. 
19, when God is said ' not to impute their sins 
unto men,' the meaning is, not that God should 
not repute men to have committed such and 
such sins against him ; but that he freely dis- 
charges them from the punishment due to them. 
By all which testimonies from Scripture, con- 
cerning the constant use of the term imputing, 
or imputation, it is evident that proposition, 
' that the transgression of the law is imputable 
from one person to another,' hath no foundation 
in Scripture. 

"And, therefore, thirdly and lastly, to come 
home to the imputation of Adam's sin to his pos~ 
terity, I answer, 

"First, that either to say that the righteous- 
ness of Christ is imputed to his posterity, (of 
believers,) or the sin of Adam to his, are both ex- 
pressions, at least, unknown to the Holy Ghost 
in the Scriptures. There is neither word, nor 
syllable, nor letter, nor title of any such thing 
to be found there. But that the faith of him 
that believeth is imputed for righteousness, are 
words which the Holy Ghost useth. 

"But, secondly, because I would make no 
exceptions against words, further than necessity 
enforceth, I grant there arc expressions in Scrip- 
ture concerning both the communication of Adam's 
sin with his posterity, and the righteousness of 
Christ with those that believe, that will fairly 
enough bear the term of imputation, if it bo 
rightly understood, and according to the use of 
it in Scripture upon other occasions. But as it 



490 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



is commonly taken and understood by many, it 
occasions much error and mistake. 

"Concerning Adam's sin or disobedience, 
many are said to be 'made sinners by it.'' Rom. 
v. 19. And so ' by the obedience of Christ' it is 
said (in the same place) ' that many shall be 
made righteous.' But if men will exchange 
language with the Holy Ghost, they must see 
that they make him no loser. If, when they 
say, 'Adam's sin is imputed to all unto condem- 
nation,' their meaning be the same with the 
Holy Ghost's, when he saith, 'that by the dis- 
obedience of one, many were made sinners,' 
there is no harm done ; but it is evident, by what 
many speak, that the Holy Ghost and they are 
not of one mind touching the imputation or 
communication of Adam's sin with his posterity, 
but that they differ as much in meaning as in 
words. If when they say, 'Adam's sin is im- 
puted to all unto condemnation,' their meaning 
be this, that the guilt of Adam's sin is charged 
upon his whole posterity, or that the punish- 
ment of Adam's sin redounded from his person 
to his whole posterity, a main part of which 
punishment lieth in that original defilement 
wherein they are all conceived and born, and 
whereby they are made truly sinners before 
God — if this be the meaning of the term im- 
putation, when applied to Adam's sin, let it 
pass. But if the meaning be that that sinful 
act, wherein Adam transgressed when he ate the 
forbidden fruit, is, in the letter and formality of 
it, imputed to his posterity, so that by this im- 
putation all his posterity are made formally sin- 
ners, this is an imputation which the Scripture 
will never justify. ' ' ( Treatise on Justification. ) 

The last text necessary to mention is Rom. 
iv. 6: "Even as David declareth the blessed- 
ness of the man to whom God imputeth righteous- 
ness without works." Here again the expositors 
of this class assume, even against the letter of 
the text and context, that the righteousness which 
God is said to impute is the righteousness of 
Christ. But Calvin himself may here be suffi- 
cient to answer them. " In the fourth chapter 
of the Romans the apostle first mentions an im- 
putation of righteousness, and immediately re- 
presents it as consisting in remission of sins. 
David, says he, describeth the blessedness of the 
man unto whom God imputeth righteousness 
without works, saying, ' Blessed are they whose 
iniquities are forgiven,' etc. He there argues, 
not concerning a branch, but the whole of justi- 
fication: he also adduces the definition of it 
given by David, when he pronounces those to be 
blessed who receive the free forgiveness of their 
sins, whence it appears that this righteousness 
is simply opposed to guilt." (Institut., lib. iii., 



[part n. 



cap. 11.) The imputation of righteousness in 
this passage is, in Calvin's view, therefore, the 
simple non-imputation of sin, or, in other words, 
the remission of sins. 

Li none of these passages is there, then, any 
thing found to countenance even that second 
view of imputation, which consists in the ac- 
counting the righteousness of Christ in justifica- 
tion to be our righteousness. It is only im- 
puted in the benefit and effect of it, that is, in 
the blessings and privileges purchased by it; 
and though we may use the phrase, the imputed 
righteousness of Christ, in this latter sense, 
qualifying our meaning like Pareeus, who says, 
"In this sense imputed righteousness is called 
the righteousness of Christ, by way of merit or 
effect, because it is procured for us by the merit 
of Christ, not because it is subjectively or in- 
herently in Christ;" yet since this manner of 
speaking has no foundation in Scripture, and 
must generally lead to misapprehensions, it will 
be found more conducive to the cause of truth 
to confine ourselves to the language of the 
Scriptures. According to them, there is no ficti- 
tious accounting either of what Christ did or 
suffered, or of both united, to us, as being done 
and suffered by us, through our union with him, 
or through his becoming our legal representa- 
tive ; but his active and passive righteousness, 
advanced in dignity by the union of the Divine 
nature and perfection, is the true meritorious 
cause of our justification. It is that great whole 
which constitutes his "merits:" that is the con- 
sideration in view of which the offended but 
merciful Governor of the world has determined 
it to be a just and righteous, as well as a merci- 
ful act, to justify the ungodly ; and, for the sake 
of this perfect obedience of our Lord to the will 
of the Father, an obedience extending unto 
"death, even the death of the cross," to every 
penitent sinner who believes in him, but con- 
sidered still in his own person as "ungodly," 
and meriting nothing but punishment, " his faith 
is imputed for righteousness:" it is followed by 
the remission of his sins, and all the benefits of 
the evangelical covenant. 

This imputation of faith for righteousness is 
the third opinion which we proposed to ex- 
amine. 

That this is the doctrine taught by the ex- 
press letter of Scripture no one can deny, and, 
as one well observes, " what that is which is im- 
puted for righteousness in justification, all the 
wisdom and learning of men is not so fit or able 
to determine, as the Holy Ghost, speaking in 
Scripture, he being the great secretary of 
heaven, and privy to all the counsels of God." 
"Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto 



CII. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



491 



him for righteousness." Rom. iv. 3. " To him 
that worketh not, but believeth on him that 
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to 
him for righteousness." Verse 5. "We say that 
faith was imputed to him for righteousness." 
Verse 9. "Now it was not written for his sake 
alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also, 
to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him 
who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." 
Verses 22-24. 

The testimony of the apostle, then, being so 
express on this point, the imputation of faith for 
righteousness must be taken to be the doctrine of 
the New Testament, unless, indeed, we admit, 
with the advocates of the imputation of the 
righteousness of Christ, that faith is here used 
nietonymically for the object of faith, that is, 
the righteousness of Christ. The context of the 
above passages, however, is sufficient to refute 
this, and makes it indubitable that the apostle 
uses the term faith in its proper and literal sense. 
In verse 5, he calls the faith of him that be- 
lieveth, and which is imputed to him for righte- 
ousness, "his faith;" but in what sense could 
this be taken if St. Paul meant by "his faith," 
the object of his faith, namely, the righteousness 
of Christ ? And how could that be his before the 
imputation was made to him ? Again, in verse 
5, the faith spoken of is opposed to works: "To 
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that 
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him 
for righteousness." Finally, in verse 22, the 
faith imputed to us is described to be our "be- 
lieving on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord 
from the dead :" so that the apostle has, by these 
explanations, rendered it impossible for us to 
understand him as meaning any thing else by 
faith but the act of believing. To those who 
will, notwithstanding this evidence from the con- 
text, still insist upon understanding faith, in 
these passages, to mean the righteousness of 
Christ, Baxter bluntly observes, "If it be not 
faith indeed that the apostle meaneth, the con- 
text is so far from relieving our understandings, 
that it contributeth to our unavoidable deceit or 
ignorance. Read over the texts, and put but 
1 Christ's righteousness' everywhere instead of 
the word ' faith,' and see what a scandalous 
paraphrase you will make. The Scripture is not 
so audaciously to be corrected." Some further 
observations will, however, bo necessary for the 
clear apprehension of this doctrine. 

We have already seen, in establishing the 
Christian doctrine of the atonement, that the 
law of God inflicts the penalty of death upon 
every act of disobedience, and that all men have 
come under that penalty — that men, having 
become totally corrupt, are not capable of obe- 



dience in future — that if they were, there is 
nothing in the nature of that future obedience to 
be a consideration for the forgiveness of past 
offences, under a righteous government. It fol- 
lows, therefore, that, by moral obedience, or 
attempted and professed moral obedience, there 
can be no remission of sins, that is, no deliver- 
ance from the penalty of offences actually com- 
mitted. This is the ground of the great argu- 
ment of the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the 
Romans. He proves both Jews and Gentiles 
under sin : that the whole world is guilty before 
God ; and by consequence under his wrath, un- 
der condemnation, from which they could only be 
relieved by the gospel. 

In his argument with the Jews, the subject is 
further opened. They sought justification by 
"works of law." If we take "works" to mean 
obedience both to the moral and ceremonial law, 
it makes no difference ; for, as they had given 
up the typical character of their sacrifices, and 
their symbolical reference to the death of Mes- 
siah, the performance of their religious rites 
was no longer an expression of faith : it was 
brought down to the same principle as obedience 
to the moral law, a simple compliance with the 
commands of God. Their case, then, was this: 
they were sinners on conviction of their law, 
and by obedience to it they sought justification, 
ignorant both of its spiritual meaning and large 
extent, and unmindful, too, of this obvious prin- 
ciple, that no acts of obedience, even if perfect, 
could take away past transgression. The apos- 
tle's great axiom on this subject is, that " by 
works of law no man can be justified" and the 
doctrine of justification, which he teaches, is the 
opposite of theirs. It is that men are sinners : 
that they must confess themselves such, and 
join to this confession a true repentance. That 
justification is a gratuitous act of God's mercy, 
a procedure of pure "grace," not of "debt." 
That in order to the exercise of this grace on 
the part of God, Christ was set forth as a propiti- 
ation for sin: that his death, under this character, 
is a "demonstration of the righteousness of 
God" in the free and gratuitous remission of 
sins ; and that this actual remission or justifica- 
tion follows upon believing in Christ, because 
faith, under this gracious constitution and me- 
thod of justification, is accounted to men for 
righteousness : in other words, that righteousness 
is imputed to them upon their believing, which 
imputation of righteousness is, as he teaches us, 
in the passages before quoted, the forgiveness of 
sins; for to have faith counted or imputed for 
righteousness is explained by David, in the 
psalm which the apostle quotes, (Horn iv.,) to 
have sin forgiven, covered, and not impute 1. 



492 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[rART II. 



That this was no new doctrine, he shows also 
from the justification of Abraham. "Abraham 
believed God, and it was counted to him for 
righteousness." Rom. iv. 3. "Know ye, there- 
fore, that they which are of faith, the same 
are the children of Abraham. And the Scrip- 
ture, foreseeing that God would justify the 
heathen through faith, preached before the gos- 
pel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all 
nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith 
are blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal. iii. 7-9. 

On the one hand, therefore, it is the plain 
doctrine of Scripture that man is not, and never 
was in any age, justified by works of any kind, 
whether moral or ceremonial : on the other, that 
he is justified by the imputation and accounting 
of "faith for righteousness." On this point, 
until the Antinomian corruption began to infest 
the reformed churches, the leading commenta- 
tors, from the earliest ages, were very uniform 
and explicit. That when faith is said to be im- 
puted to us for righteousness, the word is taken 
literally, "and not tropically, was," says Good- 
win, "the common interpretation anciently re- 
ceived and followed by the principal lights of the 
Church of God ; and for fifteen hundred years 
together (as far as my memory will assist me) 
was never questioned or contradicted. Neither 
did the contrary opinion ever look out into the 
world, till the last age. So that it is but a 
calumny brought upon it, (unworthy the tongue 
or pen of any sober man,) to make either Armi- 
nius or Socinus the author of it. And for this 
last hundred years and upward, from Luther's 
and Calvin's times, the stream of interpreters 
agrees therewith. 

" Tertullian, who wrote about the year 194, 
in his fifth book against Marcion, says, 'But 
how the children of faith ? or of whose faith, if 
not of Abraham's ? For if Abraham believed 
God, and that was imputed unto him for righte- 
ousness, and he thereby deserved the name of a 
father of many nations, we also, by believing 
God, are justified as Abraham was.' Therefore 
Tertullian' s opinion directly is, that the faith 
which is said to be imputed to Abraham for 
righteousness, is faith properly taken, and not 
the righteousness of Christ apprehended by 
faith. 

" Origen, who lived about the year 203, in his 
fourth book upon the Romans, chap. iv. verse 
3, says, 'It seems, therefore, that in this place 
also, whereas many faiths (that is, many acts of 
believing) of Abraham had gone before, now all 
his faith was collected and united together, and 
so was accounted unto him for righteousness.' 

"Justin Martyr, who lived before them both, 
and not long after the Apostle John's time, 



about the year 130, in his disputation with Try- 
pho the Jew, led them both to that interpreta- 
tion. 'Abraham carried not away the testimony 
of righteousness, because of his circumcision, 
but because of his faith. For before he was 
circumcised, this was pronounced of him, Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness.' 

"Chrysostom, upon Gal. iii., says, 'For what 
was Abraham the worse for not being under the 
law ? Nothing at all. For his faith was suffi- 
cient unto him for righteousness.' If Abra- 
ham's faith was sufficient unto him for righte- 
ousness, it must needs be imputed by God for 
righteousness unto him; for it is this imputa- 
tion from God that must make that sufficiency 
of it unto Abraham. That which will not pass 
in account with God for righteousness, will 
never be sufficient for righteousness unto the 
creature. 

"St. Augustin, who lived about the year 
390, gives frequent testimony to this interpreta- 
tion. Upon Psalm cxlviii. : ' For we by believ- 
ing have found that which they (the Jews) lost 
by not believing. For Abraham believed God, 
and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.' 
Therefore his opinion clearly is, that it was 
Abraham's faith, or believing, properly taken, 
that was imputed unto him for righteousness, 
and not the righteousness of Christ. For that 
faith of his, which was so imputed, he opposeth 
to the unbelief of the Jews, whereby they lost 
the grace and favor of God. Now, the righte- 
ousness of Christ is not opposed to unbelief, 
but faith properly taken. Again, writing upon 
Psalm lxx. : ' For I believe in him that justi- 
fieth the ungodly, that my faith may be im- 
puted unto me for righteousness.' The same 
father yet again, in his tract of Nature and 
Grace : ' But if Christ died not in vain, the un- 
godly is justified in him alone : to whom, be- 
lieving in him that justifieth the ungodly, his 
faith is accounted for righteousness.' 

"Primasius, about the year 500, writes upon 
Romans iv., verse 3: 'Abraham's faith by the 
gift of God was so great, that both his former 
sins were forgiven him, and this faith of his 
alone preferred in acceptation before all righte- 
ousness.' 

"Bede, who lived somewhat before the year 
700, upon Romans iv., verse 5, observes, 'What 
faith, but that which the apostle in another place 
fully defineth? neither circumcision, nor uncir- 
cumcision, availeth any thing, but faith which 
worketh by love : not any faith, but that faith 
which worketh by love.' Certainly that faith, 
which Paul defineth to be a faith working by 
love, cannot be conceived to be the righteous- 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



498 



ness of Christ ; and yet this faith it was, in the 
judgment of this author, that was imputed unto 
Abraham for righteousness. 

"Haymo, about the year 840, on Rom. iv. 3, 
writes: 'Because he believed God, it was im- 
puted unto him for righteousness, that is, unto 
remission of sins, because by that faith, where- 
with he believed, he was made righteous.' 

"Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, about 
the year 1090, upon Rom. iv. 3 : ' That he 
(meaning Abraham) believed so strongly, was by 
God imputed for righteousness unto him: that 
is, etc., by his believing he was imputed right- 
eous before God.' 

"From all these testimonies it is apparent 
that the interpretation of this scripture which 
we contend for anciently obtained in the Church 
of God, and no man was found to open his 
mouth against it, till it had been established 
for above a thousand years. Come we to the 
times of reformation : here we shall find it still 
maintained by men of the greatest authority and 
learning. 

"Luther on Gal. iii. 6 : 'Christian righteous- 
ness is an affiance or faith in the Son of God, 
which affiance is imputed unto righteousness for 
Christ's sake.' And in the same place, not long 
after, 'God for Christ's sake, in whom I have 
begun to believe, accounts this (my) imperfect 
faith for perfect righteousness.' 

"Bucer, upon Rom. iv. 3: 'Abraham believed 
God, and it was imputed unto him for righte- 
ousness; that is, he accounted this faith for 
righteousness unto him. So that by believing 
he obtained this, that God esteemed him a righte- 
ous man.' 

"Peter Martyr declares himself of the same 
judgment, upon Rom. iv. 3: 'To be imputed 
for righteousness in another sense, that by which 
we ourselves are reckoned in the number of the 
righteous. And this Paul attributes to faith 
only.' 

" Calvin has the same interpretation upon 
Rom. iv. 3 : ' Wherefore Abraham, by believing, 
doth only embrace the grace tendered unto him, 
that it might not be in vain. If this be im- 
puted unto him for righteousness, it follows that 
he is no otherwise righteous, but as, trusting or 
relying upon the goodness of God, he hath bold- 
ness to hope for all things from him.' Again, 
upon verse 5, ' Faith is imputed for righteous- 
ness, not because it carrieth any merit from us, 
but because it apprehends the goodness of God.' 
Hence it appears that he never thought of a tro- 
pical or metonymical sense in the word faith; but 
that ho took it in the plain, ready, and gramma- 
tical signification. 

" Musculus contends for this imputation, also, 



in his commonplace of justification, sect. 5 : 
' This faith should be in high esteem with us : 
not in regard of the proper quality of it, but in 
regard of the purpose of God, whereby he hath 
decreed, for Christ's sake, to impute it for righte- 
ousness unto those that believe in him.' The 
same author upon Gal. iii. 6 : ' What did Abra- 
ham that should be imputed unto him for righte- 
ousness, but only this, that he believed God?' 
Again, 'But when he firmly believed God pro- 
mising, that very faith was imputed to him, in 
the place of righteousness ; that is, he was of God 
reputed righteous for that faith, and absolved 
from all his sins.' 

" Bullinger gives the same interpretation, upon 
Romans iv. : 'Abraham committed himself unto 
God by believing, and this very thing was im- 
puted unto him for righteousness.' And so, 
upon Gal. iii. 6 : ' It was imputed unto him for 
righteousness ; that is, that very faith of Abraham 
was imputed to him for righteousness, while he 
was yet uncircumcised.' 

" Gaulter comes behind none of the former, in 
avouching the grammatical against the rheto- 
rical interpretation, upon Romans iv. 3 : 'Abra- 
ham believed God, and he, namely, God, im- 
puted unto him this faith for righteousness.' 

"Illyricus forsakes not his fellow-interpre- 
ters in this point, upon Romans iv. 3 : ' That 
same believing was imputed unto him for righte- 
ousness.' 

" Pellicanus, in like manner, says, upon Gen. 
xv. 6 : 'Abraham simply believed the word of 
God, and required not a sign of the Lord, and 
God imputed that very faith unto Abraham him- 
self for righteousness.' 

" Hunnius, another divine, sets to his seal, on 
Romans iv. 3 : ' The faith whereby Abraham be- 
lieved God promising, was imputed unto him for 
righteousness.' 

" Beza, upon the same scripture, says : ' Here 
the business is, concerning that which was im- 
puted unto him, namely, his faith.' 

"Junius and Treinellius are likewise of the 
same mind, on Gen. xv. 6 : ' God esteemed (or 
accounted) him for righteous, though wanting 
righteousness, and reckoned this in the place 
of righteousness, that he embraced the promise 
with a firm belief.'" — Vide Goodwin on Justifi- 
cation. 

Our English divines have generally differed in 
their interpretations, as they have embraced or 
opposed tho Calvinistic system ; but among the 
more moderate of that school there have not 
been wanting many who have bound their system 
to the express letter and obvious meaning of 
Scripture on this point: not io mention either 
those who have adopted that middle scheme, gene- 






494 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



rally but not Trltli exactness attributed to Baxter, 
or the followers of the Remonstrants. 

When, however, we say that faith is imputed 
for righteousness, in order to prevent misap- 
prehension, and fully to answer the objections 
raised on the other side, the meaning of the dif- 
ferent terms of this proposition ought to be ex- 
plained. They are righteousness, eaith, and 

IMPUTATION. 

To explain the first, reference has sometimes 
been made to the three terms used by the Apos- 
tle Paul, dmaicd/ia, dinaiocnc, and duiaioavvr] ; of 
which, says Baxter, "the first usually signifies 
the practical or preceptive matter, that is, 
righteousness; the second, active, efficient justifica- 
tion; the third, the state of the just, qualitative 
or relative, or ipsam justitiam." Others have 
made these distinctions a little different; but 
not much help is to be derived from them, and 
it is much more important to observe that the 
apostle often uses the term diKaioavvn, righteous- 
ness, in a passive sense for justification itself. 
So in Gal. ii. 21: " If righteousness (justifica- 
tion) come by the law, then Christ is dead in 
vain." Gal. iii. 21: "For if there had been a 
law given which could have given life, verily 
righteousness (justification) should have been by 
the law." Rom. ix. 30: "The Gentiles have 
attained to righteousness, (justification,) even the 
righteousness (justification) which is by faith." 
And in Rom. x. 4: "Christ is the end of the 
law for righteousness to every one that be- 
lieveth;" where, also, we must understand righte- 
ousness to mean justification. Rom. v. 18, 19, 
will also show, that with the apostle, "to make 
righteous," and "to justify," signify the same 
thing; for "justification of life," in the 18th 
verse, is called in the 19th being "made righte- 
ous." To be accounted righteous is, then, in the 
apostle's style, where there has been personal 
guilt, to be justified ; and what is accounted or 
imputed to us for righteousness, is accounted or 
imputed to us for our justification. 

The second term of the above proposition 
which it is necessary to explain, is faith. The 
true nature of justifying faith will be explained 
below ; all that is here necessary to remark is, 
that it is not every act of faith, or faith in the 
general truths of revelation, which is imputed 
for righteousness, though it supposes them all, 
and is the completion of them all. By faith we 
understand that the worlds were framed by the 
word of God ; but it is not our faith in creation 
which is imputed to us for righteousness. So 
in the case of Abraham : he not only had faith 
in the truths of the religion of which he was 
the teacher and guardian, but had exercised affi- 
ance, also, in some particular promises of God, 



[PART II. 

before he exhibited that great act of faith 
which was "counted to him for righteousness," 
and which made his justification the pattern of 
the justification of sinful men in all ages. But 
having received the promise of a son, from 
whom the Messiah should spring, in whom all 
nations were to be blessed; and "being not 
weak in faith, he considered not his own body 
now dead, when he was about a hundred years 
old, nor yet the deadness of Sarah's womb : he 
staggered not at the promise of God through un- 
belief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to 
God, and being fully persuaded that what he 
had promised he was able also to perform, and 
therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." 
Rom. iv. 19-23. His faith had Messiah for its 
great and ultimate object, and in its nature it 
was an entire affiance in the promise and faith- 
fulness of God, with reference to the holy seed. 
So the object of that faith which is imputed to 
us for righteousness is Christ : Christ as having 
made atonement for our sins, (the remission of 
our sins, as expressly taught by St. Paul, being 
obtained by "faith in his blood f) and it is in 
its nature an entire affiance in the promise of 
God to this effect, made to us through his atone- 
ment, and founded upon it. Faith being thus 
understood, excludes all notion of its meritori- 
ousness. It is not faith, generally considered, 
which is imputed to us for righteousness ; but 
faith (trust) in an atonement offered by another 
in our behalf; by which trust in something with- 
out us, we acknowledge our own insufficiency, 
guilt, and unworthiness, and directly ascribe 
the merit to that in which we trust, and which 
is not our own, namely, the propitiation of the 
blood of Christ. 

The third term is imputation. The original 
verb is well enough translated to impute, in the 
sense of to reckon, to account; but, as we have 
stated above, it is never used to signify imputa- 
tion in the sense of accounting the actions of one 
person to have been performed by another. 

A man's sin or righteousness is imputed to him, 
when he is considered as actually the doer of sin- 
ful or of righteous acts, in which sense the word 
repute is in more general use ; and he is, in con- 
sequence, reputed a vicious or a holy man. A 
man's sin or righteousness is imputed to him in 
its legal consequence, under a government, by re- 
wards and punishments ; and then to impute sin 
or righteousness, signifies, in a legal sense, to 
reckon and to account it, to acquit or condemn, 
and forthwith to punish, or to exempt from pimish- 
ment. Thus Shimei entreats David that he would 
"not impute iniquity unto him;" that is, that 
he would not punish his iniquity. In this sense, 
too, David speaks of the blessedness of the man to 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



495 



whom the Lord "imputeth not sin ;" that is, whom 
he forgives, so that the legal consequence of his 
sin shall not fall upon him. This non-imputa- 
tion of sin to a sinner, is expressly called the 
"imputation of righteousness, without works:" 
the imputation of righteousness is, then, the 
non-punishment or pardon of sin; and if this 
passage be read in its connection, it will also be 
seen, that by "imputing" faith for righteous- 
ness, the apostle means precisely the same thing. 
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on 
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness ; even as David, also, describeth 
the blessedness of the man unto whom God imput- 
eth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is 
the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose 
sins are covered : blessed is the man to whom the 
Lord will not impute sin." This quotation from 
David would have been nothing to the apostle's 
purpose, unless he had understood the forgiveness 
of sins, and the imputation of righteousness, and 
the non-imputation of sin, to signify the same thing 
as "counting faith for righteousness," with only 
this difference, that the introduction of the term 
"faith" marks the manner in which the forgiveness 
of sin is obtained. To impute faith for righteous- 
ness, is nothing more than to be justified by faith, 
which is also called by St. Paul, "being made 
righteous ;" that is, being placed by an act of 
free forgiveness, through faith in Christ, in the 
condition of righteous men in this respect, that 
the penalty of the law does not lie against them, 
and that they are restored to the Divine favor. 

From this brief, but, it is hoped, clear expla- 
nation of these terms, righteousness, faith, and 
imputation, it will appear that it is not quite cor- 
rect in the advocates of the Scripture doctrine 
of the imputation of faith for righteousness, to 
say that our faith in Christ is accepted in the 
place of personal obedience to the law, except, 
indeed, in this loose sense, that our faith in Christ 
as effectually exempts us from punishment as if 
we had been personally obedient. The scriptural 
doctrine is, rather, that the death of Christ is ac- 
cepted in the place of our personal punishment, 
on condition of our faith in him ; and that when 
faith in him is actually exerted, then comes in, 
on the part of God, the act of imputing or reckon- 
ing righteousness to us ; or, what is the same 
thing, accounting faith for righteousness, that is, 
pardoning our offences through faith, and treat- 
ing us as the objects of his restored favor. 

To this doctrine of the imputation of faith for 
righteousness, the principal objections which 
have been made admit of an easy answer. 

The first is that of the papists, who take the 
term justification to signify the making men 
morally just or righteous; and they, therefore, 



argue, that as faith alone is not righteousness in 
the moral sense, it would be false, and, there- 
fore, impossible, to impute it for righteousness. 
But as we have proved from Scripture that jus- 
tification simply signifies the pardon of sin, this 
objection has no foundation. 

A second objection is, that if faith, that is, be- 
lieving, is imputed for righteousness, then justi- 
fication is by works, or by somewhat in ourselves. 
In this objection, the term works is equivocal. 
If it mean works of obedience to the moral law, 
the objection is unfounded, for faith is not a work 
of this kind ; and if it mean the merit of works 
of any kind, it is equally without foundation, 
for no merit is allowed to faith, and faith, in the 
sense of exclusive affiance, or trusting in the 
merits of another, shuts out, by its very nature, 
all assumption of merit to ourselves, or there 
would be no need of resorting to another's merit; 
but if it mean that faith or believing is the doing 
of something, in order to our justification, it is, 
in this view, the performance of a condition, a 
sine qua non, which is not only not forbidden by 
Scripture, but required of us, — "This is the work 
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath 
sent:" "He that believeth shall be saved, and he 
that believeth not shall be damned." And so far 
is this considered by the Apostle Paul as pre- 
judicing the free grace of God in our justifica- 
tion, that he makes our justification by faith the 
proof of its gratuitous nature, "for by grace are 
ye saved, through faith." "Therefore, it is of 
faith, that it might be by grace." 

A third objection is, that the imputation of 
faith for righteousness gives occasion to boast- 
ing, which is condemned by the gospel. The an- 
swer to this is, 1. That the objection lies with 
equal strength against the theory of the imputa- 
tion of the righteousness of Christ, since faith is 
required in order to that imputation. 2. Boast- 
ing of our faith is cut off by the consideration 
that this faith itself is the gift of God. 3. If it 
were not, yet the blessings which follow upon our 
faith are not given with reference to any worth 
or merit which there may be in our believing, but 
arc given with respect to the death of Christ, 
from the bounty and grace of God. 4. St. Paul 
was clearly of the contrary opinion, who tells us 
that "boasting is excluded by the law of faith :" 
the reason of which has been already stated, that 
trust in another for salvation does, ipso facto, 
attribute the power, and consequently the honor 
of saving, to another, and denies both to our- 
selves. 

Since, then, we arc "justified by faith," our 
next inquiry must be, somewhat move particu- 
larly, into the specific quality of that faith whioh 
thus, by the appointment of God, leads to this 



496 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



important change in our relations to the Being 
whom we have offended, so that our offences are 
freely forgiven, and we are restored to his favor. 

On the subject of justifying faith, so many dis- 
tinctions have been set up, so many logical terms 
and definitions are found in the writings of sys- 
tematic divines, and often, as Baxter has it, 
" such quibbling and jingling of a mere sound 
of words," that the simple Christian, to whom 
this subject ought always to be made plain, has 
often been grievously perplexed, and no small 
cause has been given for the derision of infidels. 
On this, as on other points, we appeal "to the 
law and testimony," to Christ and his apostles, 
who are, at once, the only true authorities and 
teachers of the greatest simplicity. 

We remark, then, 

1. That, in Scripture, faith is presented to us 
under two leading views. The first is that of 
assent or persuasion ; the second, that of confi- 
dence or reliance. That the former may be 
separated from the latter, is also plain, though 
the latter cannot exist without the former. Faith, 
in the sense of intellectual assent to truth, is 
allowed to be possessed by devils. A dead, in- 
operative faith is also supposed or declared to 
be possessed by wicked men professing Christi- 
anity ; for our Lord represents persons coming 
to him at the last day, saying, "Lord, Lord, have 
we not prophesied in thy name," etc., to whom he 
will say, "I never knew you, depart from me;" 
and yet the charge, in this case, does not lie 
against the sincerity of their belief, but against 
their conduct as "workers of iniquity." As 
this distinction is taught in Scripture, so it is also 
observed in experience, that assent to the truths 
of revealed religion may result from examination 
and conviction, while yet the spirit and conduct 
may be unrenewed and wholly worldly. 

On the other hand, that the faith which God 
requires of men always comprehends confidence 
or reliance, as well as assent or persuasion, is 
equally clear. The faith by which " the elders 
obtained a good report," was of this character: 
it united assent to the truth of God's revelations, 
to a noble confidence in his promises. " Our 
fathers trusted in Thee, and were not confounded." 
We have a further illustration in our Lord's ad- 
dress to his disciples upon the withering away 
of the fig-tree: "Have faith in God." He did 
not question whether they believed the existence 
of God, but exhorted them to confidence in his 
promises, when called by him to contend with 
mountainous difficulties. "Have faith in God; 
for verily I say unto you, that whosoever shall 
say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be 
thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his 
heart, but shall believe that those things which 



[part II. 



he saith shall come to pass, he shall have what- 
soever he saith." It was in reference to his 
simple confidence in Christ's power that our 
Lord so highly commended the centurion, Matt. 
viii. 10, and said, "I have not found so great 
faith, no, not in Israel." And all the instances 
of faith in the persons miraculously healed by 
Christ were also of this kind : it was belief in 
his claims, and confidence in his goodness and 
power. 

The faith in Christ which in the New Testa- 
ment is connected with salvation, is clearly of 
this nature ; that is, it combines assent with re- 
liance, belief with trust. "Whatsoever ye shall 
ask the Father in my name!' 1 — that is, independence 
upon my interest and merits — " he will give it 
you." Christ was preached both to Jews and 
Gentiles as the object of their trust, because he 
was preached as the only true sacrifice for sin ; 
and they were required to renounce their de- 
pendence upon their own accustomed sacrifices, 
and to transfer that dependence to his death and 
mediation — and "in his name shall the Gentiles 
trust." He is set forth as a propitiation, "through 
faith in his blood ;" which faith can neither merely 
mean assent to the historical fact that his blood 
was shed by a violent death, nor mere assent to 
the general doctrine that his blood had an aton- 
ing quality ; but as all expiatory offerings were 
trusted in as the means of propitiation both among 
Jews and Gentiles, that faith or trust was now 
to be exclusively rendered to the blood of Christ, 
heightened by the stronger demonstrations of a 
Divine appointment. 

To the most unlettered Christian this then will 
be most obvious, that that faith in Christ which 
is required of us, consists both of assent and 
trust; and the necessity of maintaining these in- 
separably united will further appear by consider- 
ing, that it is not a blind and superstitious trust s 
in the sacrifice of Christ, like that of the hea- 
thens in their sacrifices, which leads to salvation ; 
nor the presumptuous trust of wicked and im- 
penitent men, who depend on Christ to save them 
in their sins ; but such a trust as is exercised 
according to the authority and direction of the 
word of God ; so that to know the gospel in its 
leading principles, and to have a cordial belief 
in it, is necessary to that more specific act of 
faith which is called reliance, or, in systematic 
language, fiducial assent, of which cometh salva- 
tion. The gospel, as the scheme of man's salva- 
tion, supposes that he is under law ; that this law 
of God has been violated by all ; and that every 
man is under sentence of death. Serious con- 
sideration of our ways, confession of the fact, 
and sorrowful conviction of the evil and danger 
of sin, will follow the gift of repentance, and a 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



497 



cordial belief of the testimony of God, and we 
shall thus turn to God with contrite hearts, and 
earnest prayers and supplications for his mercy. 
This is called "repentance toward God ;" and re- 
pentance being the first subject of evangelical 
preaching, and then the belief of the gospel, it 
is plain that Christ is only immediately held out 
in this Divine plan of our redemption as the ob- 
ject of trust in order to forgiveness to persons 
in this state of penitence, and under this sense of 
danger. The degree of sorrow for sin, and 
alarm upon this discovery of our danger as sin- 
ners, is nowhere fixed in Scripture ; only it is 
supposed everywhere that it is such as to lead 
men to inquire earnestly, "What shall I do to be 
saved ?" and to use all the appointed means of 
salvation, as those who feel that their salvation 
is at issue — that they are in a lost condition, and 
must be pardoned or perish. To all such per- 
sons, Christ, as the only atonement for sin, is 
exhibited as the object of their trust, with the 
promise of God, " that whosoever believeth in him 
shall not perish, but have everlasting life." No- 
thing is required of such but this actual trust in 
and personal apprehension or taking hold of the 
merits of Christ's death as a sacrifice for sin; 
and upon their thus believing they are justified, 
their faith is "counted for righteousness." 

This appears to be the plain scriptural repre- 
sentation of this doctrine, and we may infer from 
it, 1. That the faith by which we are justified is 
not a mere assent to the doctrines of the gospel, 
which leaves the heart unmoved and unaffected 
by a sense of the evil and danger of sin, and the 
desire of salvation, though it supposes this 
assent ; nor, 2. Is it that more lively and cordial 
assent to and belief in the doctrine of the gos- 
pel, touching our sinful and lost condition, which 
is wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, and 
from which springeth repentance, though this 
must precede it ; nor, 3. Is it only the assent of 
the mind to the method by which God justifies 
the ungodly by faith in the sacrifice of his Son, 
though this is an element of it; but it is a 
hearty concurrence of " the will and affections 
with this plan of salvation, which implies a re- 
nunciation of every other refuge," "and an 
actual trust in the Saviour, and personal appre- 
hension of his merits : such a belief of the gos- 
pel by the power of the Spirit of God as leads 
us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust 
in Christ, and to commit the keeping of our souls 
into his hands, in humble confidence of his abil- 
ity and his willingness to save us." — Bunting's 
Sermon on Justification. 

This is that qualifying condition to which the 
promise of God annexes justification: that with- 
out which justification would not take place ; and 
32 



: in this sense it is that we are justified by faith : 
1 not by the merit of faith, but by faith instrumen- 
tally as this condition ; for its connection with the 
benefit arises from the merits of Christ, and the 
promise of God. "If Christ had not merited, 
God had not promised : if God had not promised, 
justification had never followed upon this faith : 
so that the indissoluble connection of faith and 
justification is from God's institution, whereby 
he hath bound himself to give the benefit upon 
performance of the condition. Yet there is an 
aptitude in this faith to be made a condition ; for 
no other act can receive Christ as a priest propi- 
tiating, and pleading the propitiation, and the 
promise of God for his sake to give the benefit. 
As receiving Christ and the gracious promise in 
this manner, it acknowledgeth man's guilt, and 
so man renounceth all righteousness in himself, 
and honoreth God the Father, and Christ the Son, 
the only Redeemer. It glorifies God's mercy and 
free grace in the highest degree. It acknowledg- 
eth on earth, as it will be perpetually acknow- 
ledged in heaven, that the whole salvation of 
sinful man, from the beginning to the last degree 
thereof, whereof there shall be no end, is from 
God's freest love, Christ's merit and intercession, 
his own gracious promise, and the power of his 
own Holy Spirit." — Lawson. 

Justification by faith alone is thus clearly the 
doctrine of the Scriptures ; and it was this great 
doctrine brought forth again from the Scriptures 
into public view, and maintained by their author- 
ity, which constituted one of the main pillars of 
the reformation from popery ; and on which no 
compromise could be allowed with that corrupt 
Church which had substituted for it the merit of 
works. Melancthon, in his Apology for the 
Augsburg Confession, thus speaks: — "To repre- 
sent justification by faith only has been con- 
sidered objectionable, though Paul concludes 
that 'a man is justified by faith without the 
deeds of the law;' 'that we are justified freely 
by his grace,' and * that it is the gift of God, not 
of works, lest any man should boast.' If the use 
of the exclusive term only is deemed inadmissible, 
let them expunge from the writings of the apostles 
the exclusive phrases, ' by grace,' '■not of works' 
1 the gift of God,' and others of similar import." 
"We are accounted righteous before God," says 
the eleventh Article of the Church of England, 
" only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
faith, not for our works and deserving* ;" and 
again, in the Homily on Salvation, "St. Paul 
declares nothing upon the behalf of man con- 
cerning his justification, but only a true and 
lively faith, which, nevertheless, ifi the gift of God, 
ami not man's only work without God. Ami yet 
that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, 



498 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



loye, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined 
with faith in every man that is justified; but 
only shutteth them out from the office of justify- 
ing. So that, although they be all present 
together in him that is justified, yet they justify 
not altogether." 

It is an error, therefore, to suppose, as many 
have done, that the doctrine of justification by 
faith alone is peculiarly a Calvinistic one. It 
has, in consequence, often been attacked under 
this mistake, and confounded with the peculiari- 
ties of that system, by writers of limited read- 
ing, or perverting ingenuity. It is the doctrine, as 
we have seen, not of the Calvinistic confessions 
only, but of the Lutheran Church, and of the 
Church of England. It was the doctrine of the 
Dutch Remonstrants, at least of the early divines 
of that party ; and though among many divines of 
the Church of England the errors of popery on the 
subject of justification have had their influence, 
and some, who have contended for justification by 
faith alone, have lowered the scriptural standard of 
believing, the doctrine itself has often been very 
ably maintained by its later non-Calvinistic divines. 
Thus justification by faith alone — faith which 
excludes all works, both of the ceremonial and 
moral law: all works performed by Gentiles 
under the law of nature : all works of evangeli- 
cal obedience, though they spring from faith — 
has been defended by Whitby, in the preface to 
his notes on the Epistle to the Galatians, though 
he was a decided anti-Calvinist. The same may 
be said of many others ; and we may, finally, re- 
fer to Mr. Wesley, who revived, by his preaching 
and writings, an evangelical Arminianism in this 
country; and who has most clearly and ably 
established this truth in connection with the 
doctrine of general redemption, and God's uni- 
versal love to man. 

"By affirming that faith is the term or condi- 
tion of justification, I mean, first, that there is no 
justification without it. ' He that believeth not 
is condemned already;' and so long as he believ- 
eth not, that condemnation cannot be removed, 
but the 'wrath of God abideth on him.' As ' there 
is no other name given under heaven than that of 
Jesus of Nazareth,' no other merit whereby a con- 
demned sinner can ever be saved from the guilt 
of sin, so there is no other way of obtaining 
a share in his merit than by faith in his name. 
So that, as long as we are without this faith, we 
are ' strangers to the covenant of promise, we 
are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
without God in the world.' Whatsoever virtues 
(so called) a man may have — I speak of those 
unto whom the gospel is preached ; for < what 
have I to do to judge them that are without ?' — 
whatsoever good works (so accounted) he may 



[PART II. 



do, it profiteth not : he is still a child of wrath, 
still under the curse, till he believe in Jesus. 

" Faith, therefore, is the necessary condition 
of justification ; yea, and the only necessary con- 
dition thereof. This is the second point carefully 
to be observed : that the very moment God giv- 
eth faith (for it is the gift of God) to the ' un- 
godly, that worketh not,' that ' faith is counted 
to him for righteousness.' He hath no righteous- 
ness at all antecedent to this, not so much as 
negative righteousness, or innocence. But ' faith 
is imputed to him for righteousness,' the very 
moment that he believeth. Not that God (as was 
observed before) thinketh him to be what he is 
not. But as ' he made Christ to be a sin-offering 
for us,' that is, treated him as a sinner, punished 
him for our sins, so he counteth us righteous 
from the time we believe in him : that is, he 
doth not punish us for our sins, yea, treats us as 
though we were guiltless and righteous. 

"Surely the difficulty of assenting to the pro- 
position, that faith is the only condition of justi- 
fication, must arise from not understanding it. 
We mean thereby this much, that it is the only 
thing without which no one is justified — the 
only thing that is immediately, indispensably, 
absolutely requisite in order to pardon. As, on 
the one hand, though a man should have every 
thing else without faith, yet he cannot be justi- 
fied ; so, on the other, though he be supposed to 
want every thing else, yet if he hath faith, he 
cannot but be justified. For, suppose a sinner 
of any kind or degree, in a full sense of his 
total ungodliness, of his utter inability to think, 
speak, or do good, and his absolute meetness 
for hell-fire ; suppose, I say, this sinner, helpless 
and hopeless, casts himself wholly on the mercy 
of God in Christ, (which, indeed, he cannot do 
but by the grace of God,) who can doubt but he 
is forgiven in that moment? Who will affirm 
that any more is indispensably required before that 
sinner can be justified?" — Wesley's Sermons. 

To the view of justifying faith we have 
attempted to establish, namely, the entire trust 
and reliance of an awakened and penitent sinner 
in the atonement of Christ alone as the meritori- 
ous ground of his pardon, some objections have 
been made, and some contrary hypotheses op- 
posed, which it will be necessary to bring to the 
test of the word of God. 

The general objection is, that it is a doctrine 
unfavorable to morality. This was the objection 
in St. Paul's day, and it has been urged through 
all ages ever since. It proceeds, however, upon 
a great misapprehension of the doctrine ; and 
has sometimes been suggested by that real abuse 
of it, to which all truth is liable by men of per- 
verted minds and corrupted hearts. Some of 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



499 



these have pretended, or deceived themselves into 
the conclusion, that if the atonement made for 
sin by the death of Christ only be relied upon, 
however presumptuously, the sins which they 
commit will be forgiven; and that there is no 
motive, at least from fear of consequences, to 
avoid sin. Others, observing this abuse, or mis- 
led, probably, by incautious statements of sincere 
persons on this point, have concluded this to be 
the logical consequence of the doctrine, however 
innocently it may sometimes be held. Attempts 
have, therefore, been made to guard the doctrine ; 
and from these, on the other hand, errors have 
arisen. The Romish Church contends for justi- 
fication by inherent righteousness, and makes 
faith a part of that righteousness. Others con- 
tend that faith signifies obedience : others place 
justification in faith and good works united: 
others hold that faith gives us an interest in the 
merit of Christ, to make up the deficiency of a 
sincere but imperfect obedience : others think 
that true faith is in itself essentially, and, per se, 
the necessary root of obedience. 

The proper answer to the objection that justi- 
fication by faith alone leads to licentiousness, is, 
that "though we are justified by faith alone," 
the faith by which we are justified is not alone in 
the heart which exercises it. In receiving 
Christ, as the writers of the Reformation often 
say, " faith is sola, yet not solitaria" It is not 
the trust of a man asleep and secure, but the 
trust of one awakened and aware of the peril of 
eternal death, as the wages of sin : it is not the 
trust of a man ignorant of the spiritual mean- 
ing of God's holy law, but of one who is con- 
vinced and " slain" by it : not the trust of an im- 
penitent, but of a penitent man : the trust of one, 
in a word, who feels, through the convincing power 
of the word and Spirit of God, that he is justly 
exposed to wrath, and in whom this conviction 
produces a genuine sorrow for sin, and an intense 
and supreme desire to be delivered from its pen- 
alty and dominion. Now that all this is substan- 
tially, or more particularly, in the experience of 
all who pass into this state of justification 
through faith, is manifest from the seventh and 
eighth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, in 
which the moral state of man is traced in the ex- 
perience of St. Paul as an example, from his 
conviction for sin by the law of God, revealed to 
him in its spirituality, to his entrance into the 
condition and privileges of a justified state. We 
see here guilt, fear, a vain struggle with bond- 
age, poignant distress, self-despair, readiness to 
Bubmit to any effectual mode of deliverance 
which may be offered, acceptance of salvation by 
Christ, the immediate removal of condemnation, 
dominion over sin, with all the fruits of rcgene- 



j ration, and the lofty hopes of the glory of God. 
So far, then, is the doctrine of justification by 
, faith alone from leading to a loose and careless 
i conduct, that that very state of mind in which 
alone this faith can be exercised, is one which 
j excites the most earnest longings and efforts of 
j mind to be free from the bondage of sin, as well 
as from its penalty ; and to be free from its pen- 
alty in order that freedom from its bondage may 
, follow. As this is proved by the seventh chap- 
i ter of the epistle referred to, so the former part 
of the eighth, which continues the discourse, (un- 
fortunately broken by the division of the chapters,) 
shows the moral state which is the immediate re- 
sult of "being in Christ Jesus," through the exer- 
cise of that faith which alone, as we have seen, 
can give us a personal interest in him. " There is 
therefore now no condemnation to them which are 
in Christ Jesus." This is the first result of the 
pardon of sin, a consequent exemption from con- 
demnation. The next is manifestly concomitant 
with it — "Who walk not after the flesh,, but after 
the Spirit," which is now in its fulness imparted 
to them ; and by which, being regenerated, they 
are delivered from the bondage before described, 
and "walk" after his will, and under his sanc- 
tifying influence. This brings us precisely to 
the answer which the apostle himself gives to the 
objection to which we are referring, in the sixth 
chapter — "What shall we say then? Shall we 
continue in sin that grace may abound ? God 
forbid: how shall we, that are dead to sin, live 
any longer therein?" The moral state of every 
man who is justified, is here described to be, 
that he is "dead to sin." Not that justification 
strictly is a death unto sin, or regeneration ; 
but into this state it immediately brings us, so 
that, though they are properly distinguished in 
the order of our thoughts, and in the nature of 
things, they go together: he to whom "there is 
no condemnation," walks not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit; and he who experiences the 
" abounding of the grace of God" in his pardon, 
is "dead to sin," and cannot, therefoi-e, continue 
therein. This is the effect of the faith that jus- 
tifies : from that alone, as it brings us to Christ 
our deliverer, our entire deliverance from sin 
can follow ; and thus the doctrine of faith be- 
comes exclusively the doctrine of holiness, and 
points out the only remedy for sin's dominion. 

It is true that some color would be given to 
the contrary opinion, were it to be admitted 
that this act of faith, followed by our justifica- 
tion, did indefeasibly settle our right \o eternal 
blessedness by a title not to be vitiated by any 
future transgression; but this doctrine, which 
forms a part of the theory of the CalvinistS, we 
shall, in its place, show to be uuscriptural. It 



500 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



is enough here to say, that it has no connection 
with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, 
though so often ignorantly identified with it. 
Our probation is not terminated by our pardon. 
Wilful sin will infallibly plunge us again into 
condemnation, with heightened aggravations and 
hazards ; and he only retains this state of favor 
who continues to believe with that same faith 
which brings back to him, not only the assurances 
of God's mercy, but the continually renewing in- 
fluences of the Holy Spirit. 

The doctrine of justification by faith alone, as 
stated in the Scriptures, needs not, therefore, 
any of those guards and cautions which we have 
enumerated above, and which all involve serious 
errors, which it may not be useless to point 
out. 

1. The error of the Romish Church is to con- 
found justification and sanctification. So the 
Council of Trent declares that "Justification is 
not only the remission of sins, but also the sanc- 
tification of the inner man ; and that the only 
formal cause of justification is the righteousness 
of God, not that whereby he is just, but that by 
which he makes us just:" that is, inherently so. 
That justification and sanctification go together, 
we have seen ; but this is not what is meant by 
the council. Their doctrine is, that man is 
made just or holy, and then justified. The an- 
swer to this has been already given. God "jus- 
tifieth the ungodly ;" and the Scriptures plainly 
mean by justification, not sanctification, but 
simply the remission of sin, as already esta- 
blished. The passages, also, above quoted, show 
that those who hold this doctrine reverse the 
order of the Scriptures. The sanctification which 
constitutes a man inherently righteous, is con- 
comitant with justification, but does not precede 
it. Before "condemnation" is taken away, he 
cries out, " wretched man that I am ! who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death ?" when 
"there is now no condemnation," he "walks not 
after the flesh, but after the Spirit." In the 
nature of things, too, justification and sanctifica- 
tion are distinct. The active sanctification of 
the Spirit, taken in itself, either habitually or 
actually, and as inherent in us, can in nowise be 
justification, for justification is the remission of 
sins. God gave this Spirit to angels, he gave it 
to Adam in the day of creation, and this Spirit 
did sanctify, and now doth sanctify the blessed 
angels ; yet this sanctification is not remission. 
Sanctification cannot be the formal cause of jus- 
tification, any more than justification can be the 
formal cause of glorification ; for however all 
these may be connected, they are things perfectly 
distinct and different in their nature. "There 
be two kinds of Christian righteousness," says 



[part n. 

Hooker, "the one without us, which we have 
by imputation ; the other in us, which con- 
sistent of faith, hope, and charity, and other 
Christian virtues. God giveth us both the one 
justice and the other : the one by accepting us 
for righteous in Christ, the other by working 
Christian righteousness in us." — Discourse on Jus- 
tification. 

2. To the next opinion, that justifying faith, 
in the Christian sense, includes works of evan- 
gelical obedience, and is not, therefore, simple 
affiance or fiducial assent, the answer of Whitby 
is forcible: "The Scripture is express and fre- 
quent in the assertion that believers are justi- 
fied by faith ; in which expression either faith 
must include works, or evangelical obedience, or 
it doth not : if it doth not, we are justified by 
faith alone ; and that it doth not formally include 
works of evangelical righteousness appears, 1. 
From the plain distinction which the Scripture 
puts between them, when it informs us that faith 
works by love, is shown forth by our works, and 
exhorts us to add to our faith virtue, to virtue 
knowledge ; and, 2. Because it is not reasonable 
to conceive that Christ and his apostles, making 
use of a word which had a known and fixed im- 
port, should mean more by this word than what 
it signified in common use, as sure they must 
have done, had they included in the meaning of 
the word the whole of our evangelical righteous- 
ness." [Preface to Galatians.) To this we may 
add, that in every discourse of St. Paul, as to 
our justification, faith and works are opposed to 
each other ; and further, that his argument ne- 
cessarily excludes works of evangelical obedi- 
ence. For as it clearly excludes all works of 
ceremonial law, so also all works of obedience to 
the moral law ; and that not with any reference 
to their degree, as perfect or imperfect, but 
with reference to their nature as works; so, 
then, for this same reason must all works of 
evangelical obedience be excluded from the office 
of justifying, for they are also moral works, 
works of obedience to the same law, which is in 
force under the gospel ; and however they may 
be performed — whether by the assistance of 
the Spirit, or without that assistance ; whether 
they spring from faith or any other principle ; 
these are mere circumstances which alter not 
the nature of the acts themselves — they are 
works still, and are opposed by the apostle to 
grace and faith. "And if by grace, then it is 
no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more 
grace ; but if it be of works, then it is no more 
(of) grace, otherwise work is no more work." 
Rom. xi. 6. 

3. A third notion which has been adopted to 
guard the doctrine of justification by faith is, 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



501 



that faith apprehends and appropriates the merits 
of Christ to make up for the deficiency of our 
imperfect obedience. There must, therefore, he 
a sincere endeavor after obedience, and in this 
the required guard is supposed to lie; but to 
secure justification where obedience is still im- 
perfect though sincere, requires faith. 

It is a sufficient refutation of this theory, 
that no intimation is given of it in Scripture, 
and it is indeed contradicted by it. Either this 
sincere and imperfect obedience has its share 
in our justification, or it has not: if it has, we 
are justified by works and faith united, which 
has just been disproved; if it has not, then we 
are justified by faith alone, in the manner before 
explained. 

4. The last error referred to is that which 
represents faith as, per se, the necessary root 
of obedience ; so that justification by faith 
alone may be allowed ; but then the guard 
against abuse is said to lie in this, that true 
faith is itself so eminent a virtue, that it natur- 
ally produces good works. 

The objection to this statement lies not in- 
deed so much to the substantial truth of the 
doctrine taught by it, or to what is perhaps in- 
tended by most of those who so speak, for similar 
modes of expression we find in the writings of 
many of the elder divines of the Reformation, 
who most strenuously advocated justification by 
faith alone ; but to the view under which it is 
presented. Faith, when genuine, is necessarily 
the "root and mother of obedience:" good works 
of every kind, without exception, do also neces- 
sarily spring from it ; but though we say neces- 
sarily, yet we do not say naturally. The error 
lies in considering faith in Christ as so eminently 
a virtue, so great an act of obedience, that it 
must always argue a converted and renewed 
state of mind wherever it exists, from which, 
therefore, obedience must flow. "We have, how- 
ever, seen that regeneration does not precede 
justification : that till justification man is under 
bondage, and that he does not "walk after the 
Spirit" until he is so "in Christ Jesus" that 
to him "there is now no condemnation;" yet 
faith, all acknowledge, must precede justifica- 
tion, and it cannot, therefore, presuppose a re- 
generate state of mind. The truth, then, is, 
that faith does not produce obedience by any 
virtue there is in it per se; nor as it supposes a 
previous renewal of heart; but as it unites to 
Christ, gives us a personal interest in the cove- 
nant of God's mercy, and obtains for us, as an 
accomplished condition, our justification, from 
which flow the gift of the Holy Spirit and the 
regeneration of our nature. The strength of 
faith lies not, then, in what it is in itself, but in 



what it interests us in: it necessarily leads to 
good works, because it necessarily leads to justi- 
fication, on which immediately follows our "new 
creation in Christ Jesus to good works, that we 
may walk in them." 

There are yet a few theories on the subject of 
justification to be stated and examined, which, 
however, the principles already established will 
enable us briefly to dismiss. 

That of the Romish Church, which confounds 
sanctification with justification, has been already 
noticed. The influence of this theory may be 
traced in the writings of some leading divines of 
the English Church, who were not fully imbued 
with the doctrines of the reformers on this great 
point, such as Bishop Taylor, Archbishop Tillot- 
son, and others, who make regeneration neces- 
sary to justification; and also in many divines 
of the Calvinistic nonconformist class, who 
make regeneration, also, to precede justification, 
though not, like the former, as a condition of it. 

The source of this error appears to be twofold. 

It arises, first, from a loose and general notion 
of the scriptural doctrine of regeneration ; and, 
secondly, from confounding that change which 
true evangelical repentance doubtless implies, 
with regeneration itself. A few observations 
will dissipate these erroneous impressions. 

As to those previous changes of mind and con- 
duct, which they often argue from as proving a 
new state of mind and character, they are far 
from marking that defined and unequivocal state 
of renovation which our Lord expresses by the 
phrases "born again," and "born of the Spirit," 
and which St. Paul evidently explains by being 
"created anew;" "a new creation;" "living 
in the Spirit," and "walking in the Spirit." 
In the established order in which God effects this 
mighty renovation of a nature previously corrupt, 
in answer to prayers directed to him, with con- 
fidence in his promises to that effect in Christ 
Jesus, there must be a previous process, which 
divines have called by the expressive names of 
"awakening," and "conviction;" that is, the 
sleep of indifference to spiritual concerns is re- 
moved, and conviction of the sad facts of the 
case of a man who has hitherto lived in sin, and 
under the sole dominion of a carnal and earthly 
mind, is fixed in the judgment and the con- 
science. From this arises an altered and a cor- 
rected view of things : apprehension of danger : 
desire of deliverance: abhorrence of the evils 
of the heart and the life : strong efforts for free- 
dom, resisted, however, by the bondage of esta- 
blished habits and innate corruptions; and a 
still deeper sense, in oonsequenoe, oi' the need 
not only of pardon, but of that almighty and 
renewing influence which alone can effect the 



502 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



desired change. It is in this state of mind 
that the prayer becomes at once heartfelt and 
appropriate, " Create in me a clean heart, 
God, and renew a right spirit within me." 

But all this is not regeneration : it is rather 
the effect of the full and painful discovery of the 
want of it: nor will "fruits meet for repent- 
ance," the effects of an alarmed conscience, and 
of a corrected judgment : the efforts to he right, 
however imperfect — which are the signs, we also 
grant, of sincerity — prove more than that the. 
preparatory process is going on under the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit. Others may endeavor 
to persuade a person in this state of mind that 
he is regenerate ; hut the absence of love to God 
as his reconciled Father — the evils which he 
detests having still, in many respects, the domin- 
ion over him — the resistance of his heart to the 
unaccustomed yoke, when the sharp pangs of his 
convictions do not, for the moment, arm him with 
new powers of contest — his pride — his remain- 
ing self-righteousness — his reluctance to be 
saved wholly as a sinner, whose repentance 
and all its fruits, however exact and copious, 
merit nothing — all assure him that even should 
he often feel that he is "not far from the 
kingdom of God," he has not entered it: that 
his burden is "not removed : that his bonds are 
not broken: that he is not "walking in the 
Spirit:" that he is at best but a struggling 
slave, not " the Lord's free man." But there is 
a point which, when passed, changes the scene. 
He believes wholly in Christ : he is justified by 
faith: he is comforted by the Spirit's "witness- 
ing with his spirit" that he is now a child of God : 
he serves God from filial love : he has received 
new powers : the chain of his bondage is broken, 
and he is delivered : he walks not after the flesh, 
but after the Spirit: he is "dead to sin, and 
cannot continue longer therein;" and the fruit 
of the Spirit is in him — "love, joy, peace, long- 
suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, 
temperance." He is now, and not till now, in a 
regenerate state, as that state is described in 
the Scriptures. Before he was a seeker — now he 
has obtained what he sought ; and he obtains it 
concomitantly with justification. 

Still, indeed, it may be said, that call this pre- 
vious state what you will, either regeneration or 
repentance, it is necessary to justification ; and, 
therefore, justification is not by faith alone. 
We answer, that we cannot call it a regenerated 
state, a being "born of the Spirit," for the 
Scriptures do not so designate it ; and it is clear 
that the fruits of the Spirit do not belong to it ; 
and, therefore, there is an absence, not of the 
work of the Spirit, for all has its origin there, 
but of that work of the Spirit by which we are 



"born again," strictly and properly. Nor is the 
connection of this preparatory process with justi- 
fication of the same nature as that of faith with 
justification. It is necessary, it is true, as hearing 
the word is necessary, for "faith cometh by hear- 
ing ;" and it is necessary as leading to prayer and 
to faith, for prayer is the language of discovered 
want, and faith in another, in the sense of trust, 
is the result of self-diflid«fcce and self-despair ; but 
it is necessary remotely, aot immediately. This 
distinction is clearly and Accurately expressed by 
Mr. Wesley : "And yet I allow you this, that 
although both repentance and the fruits thereof 
are, in some sense, necessary before justification, 
yet neither the one nor the other is necessary in 
the same sense, nor in the same degree, with faith. 
Not in the same degree ; for in whatever moment 
a man believes, in the Christian sense of the 
word, he is justified: his sins are blotted out: 
his faith is counted to him for righteousness. 
But it is not so at whatever moment he repents, 
or brings forth any or all the fruits of repent- 
ance. Faith alone, therefore, justifies, which 
repentance alone does not, much less any out- 
ward work ; and consequently, none of these are 
necessary to justification in the same degree as 
faith. Nor in the same sense ; for none of these 
has so direct and immediate relation to justifica- 
tion as faith. This is proximately necessary 
thereto : repentance and its fruits, remotely, as 
these are necessary to the increase and continu- 
ance of faith. And even in this sense, these are 
only necessary on supposition that there is time 
and opportunity for them ; for in many instances 
there is not ; but God cuts short his work, and 
faith prevents the fruits of repentance : so that 
the general proposition is not overthrown, but 
clearly established by these concessions ; and we 
conclude still, both on the authority of Scripture 
and the Church, that faith alone is the proximate 
condition of justification." — Further Appeal, etc. 
— Sermons. 

If regeneration, in the sense in which it is 
used in Scripture, and not loosely and vaguely, 
as by many divines, both ancient and modern, is 
then a concomitant of justification, it cannot be 
a condition of it ; and as we have shown that all 
the changes which repentance implies fall short 
of regeneration, repentance is not an evidence of 
a regenerate state ; and thus the theory of justi- 
fication by regeneration is untenable. A second 
theory, not, indeed, substantially different from 
the former, but put into different phrase, and 
more formally labored, is that of Bishop Bull, 
which gave rise to the celebrated controversy of 
his day, upon the publication of his Harmonia 
Apostolica ; and it is one which has left the deep- 
est impress upon the views of the clergy of the 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



503 



English Church, and contributed more than any | 
thing else to obscure her true doctrine, as con- ! 
tained in her articles and homilies, on this lead- j 
ing point of experimental theology. This theory 
is professedly that of justification by works, 
with these qualifications, that the works are 
evangelical, or such as proceed from faith : that I 
they are done by the assistance of the Spirit of i 
God ; and that such works are not meritorious, j 
but a necessary condition of justification. To I 
establish this hypothesis, it was necessary to 
avoid the force of the words of St. Paul ; and the 
learned prelate just mentioned, therefore, re- 
verses the usual practice of commentators, which 
is to reconcile St. James to St. Paul on the 
doctrine of justification ; and assuming that 
St. James speaks clearly and explicitly, and 
St. Paul, on this point, things "hard to be 
understood," he interprets the latter by the 
former, and reconciles St. Paul to St. James. 
According, then, to this opinion, St. James ex- 
plicitly asserts the doctrine of justification of 
sinful men before God by the works which pro- 
ceed from faith in Christ : St. Paul, therefore, 
when he denies that man can be justified by 
works, refers simply to works of obedience to 
the Mosaic law ; and by the faith which justifies, 
he means the works which spring from faith. 
Thus the two apostles are harmonized by Bishop 
Bull. 

The main pillar of this scheme is, that St. 
James teaches the doctrine of justification be- 
fore God by works springing from faith in 
Christ ; and as it is necessary in a discourse on 
justification to ascertain the meaning of this 
apostle in the passages referred to, both because 
his words may appear to form an objection to 
the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which 
we have established, and also on account of the 
misleading statements which are found in many 
of the attempts which have been made to recon- 
cile the two apostles, this may be a proper place i 
for that inquiry, the result of which will show j 
that Bishop Bull and the divines of that school 
have as greatly mistaken St. James as they have j 
mistaken St. Paul. , 

We observe, then, 1. That to interpret St. 
Paul by St. James involves this manifest absurd- 
ity, that it is interpreting a writer who treats 
professedly, and in a set discourse, on the subject 
in question, the justification of a sinful man 
before God, by a writer who, if he could be 
allowed to treat of that subject with the same 
design, does it but incidentally. This itself 
makes it clear that the great axiomata, the prin- 
ciples of this doctrine, must be first sought for 
in tho writer who enters professedly, and by 
copious argument, into the inquiry. 



But, 2. The two apostles do not engage in the 
same argument, and for this reason, that they are 
not addressing themselves to persons in the same 
circumstances. St. Paul addresses the unbeliev- 
ing Jews, who sought justification by obedience 
to the law of Moses, moral and ceremonial: 
proves that all men are guilty, and that neither 
Jew nor Gentile can be justified by works of obe- 
dience to any law, and that, therefore, justifica- 
tion must be by faith alone. On the other hand, 
St. James, having to do in his epistle with such 
as professed the Christian faith and justification 
by it, but erred dangerously about the nature 
of faith — affirming that faith, in the sense of 
opinion or mere belief of doctrine, would save 
them, though they should remain destitute of a 
real change in the moral frame and constitution 
of their minds, and give no evidence of this in a 
holy life — it became necessary for him to plead 
the renovation of man's nature, and evangelical 
obedience, as the necessary fruits of real or liv- 
ing faith. The question discussed by St. Paul 
is, whether works would justify ; that by St. 
James is, whether a dead faith, the mere faith 
of assent, would save. 

3. St. Paul and St. James do not use the term 
justification in the same sense. The former uses 
it, as we have seen, for the pardon of sin, the 
accepting and treating as righteous one who is 
guilty, but penitent. But that St. James does 
not speak of this kind of justification is most 
evident, from his reference to the case of Abra- 
ham. "Was not Abraham, our father, justified 
by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon 
the altar ?" Does St. James mean that Abraham 
was then justified in the sense of being forgiven? 
Certainly not ; for St. Paul, when speaking of 
the justification of Abraham, in the sense of his 
forgiveness before God, by the imputation of his 
faith for righteousness, fixes that event many 
years previously, even before Isaac was born, 
and when the promise of a seed was made to him ; 
for it is added by Moses, when he gives an 
account of this transaction, Gen. xv. 6, "And he 
believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him 
for righteousness." If, then, St. James speaks 
of the same kind of justification, he contradicts 
St. Paul and Moses, by implying that Abraham 
was not pardoned and received into God's favor 
until the offering of Isaac. If no one will main- 
tain this, then the justification of Abraham, 
mentioned by St. James, it is plain, does not 
mean the forgiveness of his sins, and he uses the 
term in a differont sense to St. Taul. 

4. The only sense, then, in which St. James 
can take the term justification, when he savs 
that Abraham was "justified by works when lu> 
had offered Isaac his sou upon the altar," is, that 



504 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



his works manifested or proved that he was 
justified, proved that he was really justified by- 
faith, or, in other words, that the faith by which 
he was justified was not dead and inoperative, 
but living and active. This is abundantly con- 
firmed by what follows. So far is St. James from 
denying that Abraham was justified by the im- 
putation of his faith for righteousness, long 
before he offered up his son Isaac, that he ex- 
pressly allows it by quoting the passage, Gen. 
xv. 6, in which this is said to have taken place 
at least twenty-five years before ; and he makes 
use of his subsequent works in the argument, 
expressly to illustrate the vital and obedient 
nature of the faith by which he was at first 
justified. "Seest thou how faith wrought with 
his works, and by works was faith made per- 
fect, and the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, 
'Abraham believed God,' (in a transaction twenty- 
five years previous,) ' and it was imputed to him 
for righteousness, and he was called the friend 
of God.' " This quotation of James from Gen. 
xv. 6, demands special notice. "And the scrip- 
ture," he says, "was fulfilled, which saith," etc. 
Whitby paraphrases, "was again fulfilled:" some 
other commentators say it "was twice fulfilled," 
in the transaction of Isaac, and at the previous 
period to which the quotation refers. These 
comments are, however, hasty, darken the argu- 
ment of St. James, and have, indeed, no discern- 
ible meaning at all. For do they mean that 
Abraham was twice justified, in the sense of 
being twice pardoned ; or that his justification 
was begun at one of the periods referred to, 
and finished twenty-five years afterward ? These 
are absurdities ; and if they will not maintain 
them, in what sense do they understand St. 
James to use the phrase, " and the scripture was 
fulfilled?" The scripture alluded to by St. 
James is that given above, "and he believed in 
the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteous- 
ness." When was the first fulfilment of this 
scripture of which they speak ? It could not be 
in the transaction of Abraham's proper justifica- 
tion through his faith in the promise respecting 
"his seed," as mentioned Gen. xv. 6, for that 
scripture is an historical narration of the fact 
of that, his justification. The fact, then, was 
not a fulfilment of that part of Scripture, but 
that part of Scripture a subsequent narra- 
tion of the fact. The only fulfilment, con- 
sequently, that it had, was in the transaction 
adduced by St. James, the offering of Isaac ; but 
if Abraham had been, in the proper sense, justi- 
fied then, that event could be no fulfilment, in 
their sense, of a scripture which is a narrative 
of what was done twenty-five years before, and 
which relates only to what God then did, namely, 



[PART II. 



"count the faith of Abraham to him for right- 
eousness." The only senses in which the term 
'.'fulfil" can be taken in this passage are, that 
of accomplishment, or that of illustration and 
establishment. The first cannot apply here, for 
the passage is neither typical nor prophetic, and 
we are left, therefore, to the second; "and the 
scripture was fulfilled," illustrated and confirmed, 
which saith, "Abraham believed in God, and it 
was imputed unto him for righteousness." It was 
established and confirmed that he was, in truth, 
a man truly justified of God, and that the faith by 
which he was justified was living and operative. 

5. As St. James does not use the term justifica- 
tion in the sense of the forgiveness of sin, when 
he speaks of the justification of Abraham by 
works, so neither can he use it in this sense in 
the general conclusion which he draws from it : 
"Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justi- 
fied, and not by faith only." The ground on 
which he rests this general inference is, the 
declarative justification of Abraham, which re- 
sulted from his lofty act of obedience, in the 
case of Isaac, and which was eminently itself an 
act of obedient faith; and the justification of 
which he speaks in the general conclusion of the 
argument must, therefore, be taken in the same 
sense. He speaks not of the act of being justi- 
fied before God, and the means by which it is 
effected ; but of being proved to be in a manifest 
and scripturally approved state of justification. 
"Ye see, then, that by works a man is" shown 
to be in a "justified" state; or how his profes- 
sion of being in the Divine favor is justified and 
confirmed "by works, and not by faith only," 
or mere doctrinal faith : not by the faith of mere 
intellectual assent — not by the faith which is 
dead, and unproductive of good works. 

Lastly, so far are the two apostles from being 
in opposition to each other, that, as to faith as 
well as works, they most perfectly agree. St. 
James declares that no man can be saved by 
mere faith. But, then, by faith he means not 
the same faith to which St. Paul attributes a 
saving efficacy. His argument sufficiently shows 
this. He speaks of a faith which is "alone" and 
"dead:" St. Paul of the faith which is never 
alone, though it alone justifieth ; which is not 
solitaria, though it is sola in this work, as our 
old divines speak: the faith of a penitent, 
humbled man, who not only yields speculative 
assent to the scheme of gospel doctrine, but flies 
with confidence to Christ, as his sacrifice and 
Redeemer, for pardon of sin and deliverance 
from it : the faith, in a word, which is a fruit of 
the Spirit, and that by which a true believer 
enters into and lives the spiritual life, because it 
vitally unites him to Christ, the fountain of that 



CH. XXIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



505 



life — "the life which I now live in the flesh, I 
live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved 
me, and gave himself for me." 

There is, then, no foundation in the Epistle of 
St. James for the doctrine of justification by 
works, according to Bishop Bull's theory. The 
other arguments by which this notion has been 
supported are refuted by the principles which 
have been already laid down, and confirmed from 
the word of God. 

A third theory has also had great influence in 
the Church of England, and is to this day 
explicitly asserted by some of its leading 
divines and prelates. It acknowledges that, pro- 
vided faith be understood to be sincere and genu- 
ine, men are justified by faith only, and in this 
they reject the opinion just examined ; but then 
they take faith to be mere belief, assent to the 
truth of the gospel, and nothing more. This is 
largely defended by Whitby in his preface to the 
Galatians, which, in other respects, ably shows 
that justification is in no sense by works, either 
natural, Mosaic, or evangelical. The faith by 
which we are justified he describes to be "a 
full assent to or firm persuasion of mind con- 
cerning the truth of what is testified by God 
himself respecting our Lord Jesus Christ," and, 
in particular, "that he was Christ the Son of 
God." "This was the faith which the apostles 
required in order to baptism;" "by this faith 
men were put into the way of salvation, and if 
they persevered in it, would obtain it." 

Nearly the same view is taught by the present 
Bishop of Winchester, in his Refutation of Cal- 
vinism, and his Elements of Theology, and it is, 
probably, the opinion of the great body of 
the national clergy not distinguished as evangeli- 
cal, though with many it is also much mingled 
with the scheme of Bishop Bull. "Faith and 
belief," says Bishop Tomline, "strictly speaking, 
mean the same thing." If, then, a penitent 
heathen or Jew, convinced that Jesus was the 
Messiah, the promised Saviour of the world, 
" having understood that baptism was essential 
to the blessings of the new and merciful dispen- 
sation, of the Divine authority of which he was 
fully persuaded, would eagerly apply to some 
one of those who were commissioned to baptize, 
his baptism, administered according to the ap- 
pointed form to a true believer, would convey 
justification ; or, in other words, the baptized 
person would receive remission of his past sins, 
would be reconciled to God, and be accounted 
just and righteous in his sight." [Refutation of 
Calvinism, chap, iii.) " Faith, therefore, includ- 
ing repentance for former offences, was, as far 
as the person himself was concerned, tho sole 
requisite for justification : no previous work was 



enjoined ; but baptism was invariably the instru- 
ment or external form by which justification was 
conveyed." — Refutation of Calvinism, chap. iii. 

The confusedness and contrariety of this 
scheme will be obvious to the reader. 

It will not be denied to Dr. Whitby that the 
apostles baptized upon the profession of a 
belief in the Messiahship and Sonship of our 
Lord ; nor is it denied to Bishop Tomline that 
when baptism, in the case of true penitents, was 
not only an outward expression of the faith of 
assent, but accompanied by a solemn committal 
of the spiritual interests of the baptized to 
Christ, by an act of confidence, the power to 
do which was, no doubt, often given as a part of 
the grace of baptism, justification would follow: 
the real question is, whether justification follows 
mere assent. This is wholly contradicted by 
the argument of St. James ; for if dead faith, 
by which he means mere assent to doctrine, is 
no evidence of a justified state, it cannot be 
justifying ; which I take to be as conclusive an 
argument as possible. For St. James does not 
deny faith to him who has faith without works : 
if, then, he has faith, the apostle can mean by 
faith nothing else certainly than assent or belief: 
" Thou believest there is one God — thou doest 
well;" and as this faith, according to him, is 
" alone," by faith he means mere assent of the 
intellect. This argument shows that those theo- 
logians are unquestionably in error who make 
justification the result of mere assent to the 
evidence of the truth of the gospel, or doctrinal 
belief. And neither Dr. Whitby nor Bishop 
Tomline is able to carry this doctrine through- 
out. The former contends that this assent, 
when firm and sincere, must produce obedience ; 
but St. James denies neither firmness of convic- 
tion nor sincerity to his inoperative faith, and 
yet he tells us that it remained " alone," and was 
" dead." Besides, if faith justifies only as it pro- 
duces obedience, it does not justify alone, and 
the justifying efficacy lies in the virtual or actual 
obedience proceeding from it, which gives up 
Whitby's main position, and goes into the scheme 
of Bishop. Bull. Equally inconsistent is Bishop 
Tomline. He acknowledges that "belief, or 
faith, may exist, unaccompanied by any of the 
Christian graces ;" and that "this faith does not 
justify." How, then, will he maintain that justi- 
fication is by faith alone, in tho sense of belief! 
Again, he tells us that the faith which is tho 
means of salvation "is that belief of the truth 
of the gospel which produces obedience to its 
precepts, and is accompanied by a firm reliance 
upon the merits of Christ." Still further, that 
"baptism is the instrument invariably bj which 
justification is convcyod." (Refutation of Calvin- 



506 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



ism, chap, iii.) Thus, then, we are first told that 
justifying faith is belief or assent: then that 
various other things are connected with it to 
render it justifying, such as previous repentance, 
the power of producing obedience, reliance on 
the merits of Christ, and baptism ! All this 
confusion and contradiction shows that the doc- 
trine of justification by faith alone, in the sense 
of belief or intellectual assent only, cannot be 
maintained ; and that, in order to avoid the 
worse than Antinomian consequence which would 
follow from the doctrine, its advocates are obliged 
so to explain, and qualify, and add, as to make 
many approaches to that true doctrine against 
which they hurl both censure and ridicule. 

The error of this whole scheme lies in not con- 
sidering the essence of justifying faith to be 
trust or confidence in Christ as our sacrifice for 
sin, which, though Whitby and others of his 
school have attempted to ridicule by calling it 
" a leaning or rolling of ourselves upon him for 
salvation," availing themselves of the coarse 
terms used by scoffers, is yet most manifestly, as 
we have indeed already seen, the only sense in 
which faith can be rationally taken, when a sac- 
rifice for sin, a means of reconciliation with 
God, is its object, and indeed when any promise 
of God is made to us. It is not surely that we 
may merely believe that the death of Christ is a 
sacrifice for sin, that he is " set forth as a pro- 
pitiation," but that we may trust in its efficacy: 
it is not that we may merely believe that God has 
made promises to us, that his merciful engage- 
ments in our favor are recorded ; but that we 
may have confidence in them, and thus be sup- 
ported by them. This was the faith of the saints 
of the Old Testament. "By faith Abraham, 
when he was called to go out into a place which 
he should after receive for an inheritance, 
obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither 
he went." His faith was confidence. "Though 
he slay me, yet will I trust in him." "Who 
is among you that feareth the Lord? let him 
trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his 
God." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the 
Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." It is under 
this notion of trust that faith is continually re- 
presented to us also in the New Testament. "In 
his name shall the Gentiles trust." " For there- 
fore we both labor and suffer reproach, because 
we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour 
of all men, especially of those that believe." 
"For I know whom I have believed, (trusted,) 
and am persuaded that he is able to keep that 
which . i" have committed unto him against that 
day." " If we hold the beginning of our confi- 
dence steadfast unto the end." 

The fourth theory which we may notice, is 



that which rejects justification in the present 
life, and defers its administration to the last 
: day. This has had a few, and but a few abet- 
tors, and the principal arguments for it are: 1. 
That all the consequences of sin are not removed 
from even believers in the present life ; whereas 
a full remission of sin necessarily implies the 
full and immediate remission of punishment. 
2. That if believers are justified, that is, judged 
in the present life, they must be judged twice ; 
whereas there is but one judgment, which is to 
take place at Christ's second coming. 3. That 
the Scriptures speak of justification at the last 
day, as when our Lord declares "that every 
idle word that men shall speak they shall give 
an account thereof in the day of judgment," 
and adds, "by thy words thou shalt (then) be 
justified, and by thy words shalt thou be con- 
demned." 

To all these arguments, which a few words will 
refute, the general, and indeed sufficient answer 
is, that justification in the sense of the forgive- 
ness of sins, the only import of the term in 
question, is constantly and explicitly spoken of 
: as a present attainment. This is declared to be 
I the case with Abraham and with David, by St. 
Paul: it was surely the case with those to 
whom our Lord said, " Thy sins be forgiven 
thee;" and with her of whom he declared, that 
having "much forgiven, she loved much." "We 
have," says St. Paul, writing to the Colossians, 
i "redemption through his blood, the forgiveness 
; of sins." So plain a point needs no confirma- 
tion by more numerous quotations ; and the 
only means which the advocates of the theory 
have resorted to for explaining such passages 
consistently with their own views, is absurdly, 
and we may add audaciously, to resolve them 
into a figure of speech which speaks of a future 
thing, when certain, as present; a mode of in- 
terpretation which sets all criticism at defiance. 

As to the first argument, we may observe 
that it assumes that it is essential to the pardon 
of sin that all its consequences should be imme- 
diately removed, or otherwise they assert it is 
no pardon at all. This is to affirm, that to be 
freed from punishment in another life, and 
finally, and indeed in a short time, to be freed 
from the afflictions of this, is not a pardon; 
which no one can surely deliberately affirm. 
This notion, also, loses sight entirely of the 
obviously wise ends which are answered by post- 
poning the removal of affliction and diseases 
from those who are admitted into the Divine 
favor, till another life ; and of the sanctification 
of all these to their benefit, so that they entirely 
lose, when they are not the consequence of new 
offences, their penal character, and become parts 



CH. XXIII.] 

of a merciful discipline, "working together for 
good." 

The second argument assumes, that because 
there is but one general judgment, there can be 
no acts of judgment which are private and per- 
sonal. But the one is in no sense contrary to 
the other. Justification may, therefore, be 
allowed to be a judicial proceeding under a mer- 
ciful constitution, as before explained, and yet 
offer no obstruction to a general, public, and 
final judgment. The latter indeed grows out of 
the former; for since this offer of mercy is 
made to all men by the gospel, they are account- 
able for the acceptance or refusal of it, which it 
is a part of the general judgment to exhibit, 
that the righteousness of God, in the punishment 
of them that believe not the gospel, may be 
demonstrated, and the ground of the salvation of 
those who have been sinners, as well as the rest 
of mankind, may be declared. We may also 
further observe, that so far is the appointment 
of one general judgment from interfering with 
acts of judgment in the proceedings of the Most 
High as the governor of men, that he is con- 
stantly judging men, both as individuals and 
nations, and distributing to them both rewards 
and punishments. 

The argument from the justification of men 
at the last day, proceeds, also, upon a false 
assumption. It takes justification then and now 
for the same act ; and it supposes it to proceed 
upon the same principle ; neither of which is true. 

1. It is not true that it is the same act. The 
justification of believers in this life is the 
remission of sins ; but where are we taught that 
remission of sins is to be attained in the day 
of judgment ? Plainly nowhere, and the whole 
doctrine of Scripture is in opposition to this 
notion, for it confines our preparation for judg- 
ment to the present life only. When our Lord 
says, "by thy words thou shalt be justified," he 
does not mean "by thy words thy sins shall be 
forgiven ;" and if this is not maintained, the pas- 
sage is of no force in the argument. 

2. Justification at the last day does not pro- 
ceed upon the same principle, and, therefore, is 
not to be concluded to be the continuance of the 
same act, commenced on earth. Justification at 
the last day is, on all hands, allowed to be by 
works; but if that justification mean the par- 
don of sin, then the pardon of sin is by works 
and not by faith — a doctrine we have already 
refuted from the clear evidence of Scripture 
itself. The justification of the last day is, there- 
fore, not tho pardon of sin ; for if our sins are 
previously pardoned, we then need no pardon: 
if they aro not pardoned, no provision for their 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



507 



remission then remains. And as this justifica- 
tion is not pardon, neither is it acquittal ; for, as 
to those sins of which the wicked have not been 
guilty, they will not be acquitted of them, be- 
cause an all-wise God will not charge them with 
those of which they have not been guilty, and 
there can be no acquittal as to those they have 
j committed. Believers will not be acquitted of 
I the sins for which they have obtained forgive- 
I ness, because they will not be charged upon 
them: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge 
of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." So 
far from their being arraigned as sinners, that 
their justification on earth may be formally 
pleaded for their acquittal at the last day, that 
the very circumstances of the judgment will be a 
public recognition, from its very commencement, 
of their pardon and acceptance upon earth. 
"The dead in Christ shall rise first." "They 
rise to glory, not to shame," their bodies being 
made like unto Christ's " glorious body." Those 
that sleep in Christ shall "God bring with him," 
in his train of triumph : they shall be set on his 
"right hand," in token of acceptance and favor; 
and of the books which shall be opened, one is 
"the book of life," in which their names have 
been previously recorded. It follows, then, that 
our justification at the last day, if we must still 
use that phrase, which has little to support it in 
Scripture, and might be well substituted for 
others less equivocal, can only be declarative, 
approbatory, and remunerative : declarative, as 
recognizing, in the manner just stated, the jus- 
tification of believers on earth ; approbatory of 
their works of faith and love ; and remunerative 
of them, as made graciously rewardable, in 
their different measures, by the evangelical con- 
stitution. 

And here it may not be amiss to notice an 
argument against the doctrine of justification 
by faith alone, and in favor of justification by 
faith and works, which is drawn from the pro- 
ceedings of the last day: "If works wrought 
through faith are the ground of the sentence 
passed upon us in that day, then they are a ne- 
cessary condition of our justification." This is 
an argument which has been built much upon, 
from Bishop Bull to the present. Its fallacy lies 
in considering the works of believers as the only 
or chief ground of that sentence ; that is, the ad- 
ministration of eternal life to them in its dif- 
ferent degrees of glory at the coming of Christ. 
That it is not so, is plain from those express 
passages of Scripture which represent eternal 
life as the fruit of Christ's atonement) and the 
gift of God through him. "By grace are yo 
saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. 



508 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART IT. 



it is the gift of God, not of works," etc. " Why," 
says an old writer, "might he not have said, by 
grace are ye saved, through faith and works : it 
were as easy to say the one as the other." 1 If 
our works are the sole ground of that sentence 
of eternal life, then is the reward of righteous- 
ness of debt according to the law of works, and 
not of grace ; but if of grace, then works are not 
the sole or chief ground of our final reward. If 
of debt, we claim in our own right; and the 
works rewarded must be in every sense our 
own ; but good works are not our own works ; 
we are "created in Christ Jesus unto good 
works;" and derive all the power to do them 
from him. If, then, we have not the right of 
reward in ourselves, we have it in another ; and 
thus we again come to another and higher ground 
of the final sentence than the works wrought 
even by them that believe, namely, the covenant 
right which we derive from Christ — right ground- 
ed on promise. If, then, it is asked, in what 
sense good works are any ground at all of the 
final sentence of eternal life, we answer, they are 
so secondarily and subordinately, 1. As evidences 
of that faith and that justified state from which 
alone truly good works can spring. 2. As quali- 
fying us for heaven; they and the principles 
from which they spring constituting our holi- 
ness, our "meetness for the inheritance of the 
saints in light." 3. As rewardable ; but still of 
grace, not of debt, of promise, not of our own 
right, since after all we have done, though we 
had lived and suffered as the apostles to whom 
the words were first addressed, we are com- 
manded to confess ourselves "unprofitable ser- 
vants." In this sense good works, though they 
have no part in the office of justifying the un- 
godly, that is, in obtaining forgiveness of sin, 
are necessary to salvation, though they are not 
the ground of it. As they are pleasing to God, 
so are they approved and rewarded by God. 
" They prevent future guilt, but take away no 
former guilt, evidence our faith and title to ever- 
lasting glory, strengthen our union with Christ 
because they strengthen faith, confirm our hope, 
glorify God, give good example to men, make us 
more capable of communion with God, give 
some content to our consciences, and there is 
happiness in the doing of them, and in the re- 
membrance of them when done. Blessed are 



1 The reader will also recollect Rom. vi. 23: "The wages 
of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life, through 
our Lord Jesus Christ." The following passages expressly 
make the atonement of Christ the ground of our title to 
eternal life. " By his own blood he entered in once into 
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." 



they who always abound in them, for they know 
that their labor is not in vain in the Lord. Yet 
Bellarmine, though a great advancer of merit, 
thought it the safest way to put our sole trust 
not in these good works, but in Christ. It is, 
indeed, not only the safest, but the only way so 
to do, if we would be justified before God. True, 
we shall be judged according to our works, 
but it doth not follow that we shall be justified 
by our works. God did never ordain good works, 
which are the fruits of a sincere faith in Christ, 
to acquire a right unto the remission of sin and 
eternal life ; but to be a means by which we may 
obtain possession of the rewards he hath pro- 
mised." — Lawson's Theo-Politica. 

The last theory of justification to which it is 
necessary to advert, is that comprised in the 
scheme of Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, in his Key to 
the Apostolic Writings. It is, that all such 
phrases as to elect, call, adopt, justify, sanctify, 
etc., are to be taken to express that Church 
relation into which, by the destruction of the 
Jewish polity, believing Jews and Gentiles were 
brought; that they are "antecedent blessings," 
enjoyed by all professed Christians, though, un- 
less they avail themselves of these privileges 
for the purposes of personal holiness, they can- 
not be saved. 

This scheme is, in many respects, delusive 
and absurd, as it confounds collective privileges 
with those attainments which from their nature 
can only be personal. If we allow that with re- 
spect to "election," for instance, it may have a 
plausibility, because nations of men may be 
elected to peculiar privileges of a religious kind, 
yet with respect to the others, as "justification," 
etc., the notion requires no lengthened refuta- 
tion. Justification is, as the Apostle Paul states 
it, pardon of sin ; but are the sins of nations 
pardoned because they are professedly Chris- 
tian? This is a personal attainment, and can 
be no other, and collective justification, by 
Church privileges, is a wild dream, which mock3 
and trifles with the Scriptures. According to 
this scheme, there is a scriptural sense in which 
the most profane and immoral man, provided 
he profess himself a Christian, may be said to 
be justified, that is, pardoned ; sanctified, that 
is, made holy ; and adopted, that is, made a 
child of God ! 



" He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that, by means 
of death, they which are called might receive the promise 
of eternal inheritance." Heb. ix. 12, 15. " Christ died for 
us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together 
with him." 1 Thess. v. 10. 



CH. XXIV.] 



DOCTRINES Or CHRISTIANITY, 



509 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

BENEFITS DERIVED TO MAN FROM THE ATONE- 
MENT — CONCOMITANTS OF JUSTIFICATION. 

The leading blessings concomitant with justi- 
fication are regeneration and adoption : with 
respect to which we may observe generally, 
that although we must distinguish them as be- 
ing different from each other, and from justifi- 
cation, yet they are not to be separated. They 
occur at the same time, and they all enter into 
the experience of the same person ; so that no 
man is justified without being regenerated and 
adopted, and no man is regenerated and made a 
son of God who is not justified. Whenever they 
are mentioned in Scripture, they therefore in- 
volve and imply each other: a remark which 
may preserve us from some errors. Thus, with 
respect to our heirship, and consequent title 
to eternal life, in Titus iii. 7, it is grounded upon 
our justification: "That being justified by his 
grace, we should be made heirs according to the 
hope of eternal life." In 1 Pet. i. 3, it is con- 
nected with our regeneration. "Blessed be the 
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, 
according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten 
us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance," 
etc. Again, in Rom. viii. 17, it is grounded 
upon our adoption — "If children, then heirs." 
These passages are a sufficient proof that justi- 
fication, regeneration, and adoption are not 
distinct and different titles, but constitute one 
and the same title, through the gift of God in 
Christ, to the heavenly inheritance. They are 
attained, too, by the same faith. We are "jus- 
tified by faith;" and we are the "children of 
God by faith in Christ Jesus." Accordingly, in 
the following passages, they are all united as the 
effect of the same act of faith. " But as many 
as received him, to them gave he power to be- 
come the sons of God, [which appellation includes 
reconciliation and adoption,] even to them that 
believe on his name : which were born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
man, but of God ;" or, in other words, were re- 
generated. 

The observations which have been made on the 
subject, in the preceding chapter, will render it 
the less necessary to dwell here at length upon 
the nature and extent of regeneration. 

It is that mighty change in man, wrought by 
the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion which 
sin has over him in his natural state, and which 
he deplores and struggles against in his penitent 
state, is broken and abolished, so that, with 
full choice of will and the energy of right affec- 



tions, he serves God freely, and "runs in the 
way of his commandments." "Whosoever is 
born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed re- 
maineth in him ; and he cannot sin, because he is 
born of God." " For sin shall not have dominion 
over you; for ye are not under the law, but 
under grace." " But now being made free from 
sin, and become servants to God, ye have your 
fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." 
Deliverance from the bondage of sin, and the 
power and the will to do all things which are 
pleasing to God, both as to inward habits and 
outward acts, are, therefore, the distinctive char- 
acters of this state. 

That repentance is not regeneration, we have 
before observed. It will not bear disputing 
whether regeneration begins with repentance ; 
for if the regenerate state is only entered upon 
at our justification, then all that can be meant 
by this, to be consistent with the Scriptures, is, 
that the preparatory process, which leads to re- 
generation, as it leads to pardon, commences 
with conviction and contrition, and goes on to 
a repentant turning to the Lord. In the order 
which God has established, regeneration does 
not take place without this process. Conviction 
of the evil and danger of an unregenerate state 
must first be felt. God hath appointed this 
change to be effected in answer to our prayers; 
and acceptable prayer supposes that we desire 
the blessing we ask ; that we accept of Christ as 
the appointed medium of access to God; that 
we feel and confess our own inability to attain 
what we ask from another; and that we exer- 
cise faith in the promises of God which convey 
the good we seek. It is clear that none of these 
is regeneration, for they all suppose it to be a 
good in prospect, the object of prayer and eager 
desire. True it is, that deep and serious con- 
viction for sin, the power to desire deliverance 
from it, the power to pray, the struggle against 
the corruptions of an unregenerate heart, are all 
proofs of a work of God in the heart, and of an 
important moral change ; but it is not this change, 
because regeneration is that renewal of our na- 
ture which gives us dominion over sin, and en- 
ables us to serve God, from love, and not merely 
from fear, and it is yet confessedly unattained, 
being still the object of search and eager desire. 
We are not yet "created in Christ Jesus unto good 
works," which is as special and instant a work 
of God as justification, and for this reason, that 
it is not attained before the pardon of our sins, 
and always accompanies it. 

This last point may be proved, 

1. From the nature of justification itself, 
which takes away the penalty o( sin; but that 
penalty is not only obligation to punishment, but 



510 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



the loss of the sanctifying Spirit, and the curse 
of being left under the slavery of sin, and un- 
der the dominion of Satan. Regeneration is 
effected by this Spirit restored to us, and is a 
consequence of our pardon ; for though justifica- 
tion in itself is the remission of sin, yet a justi- 
fied state implies a change, both in our condition 
and in our disposition : in our condition, as we 
are in a state of life, not of death, of safety, not 
of condemnation ; in our disposition, as regenerate 
and new creatures. 

2. From Scripture, which affords us direct 
proof that regeneration is a concomitant of jus- 
tification: "If any man be in Christ, he is a 
new creature." It is, then, the result of our 
entrance into that state in which we are said to 
be in Christ ; and the meaning of this phrase is 
most satisfactorily explained by Rom. viii. 1, 
considered in connection with the preceding 
chapter, from which, in the division of the chap- 
ters, it ought not to have been separated. That 
chapter clearly describes the state of a person 
convinced and slain by the law applied by the 
Spirit. We may discover, indeed, in this de- 
scription, certain moral changes, as consenting to 
the law that it is good ; delighting in it after the 
inward man ; powerful desires ; humble confes- 
sion, etc. The state represented is, however, in 
fact, one of guilt, spiritual captivity, helpless- 
ness, and misery ; a state of condemnation ; and 
a state of bondage to sin. The opposite condi- 
tion is that of a man " in Christ Jesus :" to him 
"there is no condemnation ;" he is forgiven; the 
bondage to sin is broken; he "walks not after the 
flesh, but after the Spirit." To be in Christ, 
is, therefore, to be justified, and regeneration 
instantly follows. We see, then, the order of the 
Divine operation in individual experience: con- 
viction of sin, helplessness, and danger ; faith ; 
justification ; and regeneration. The regene- 
rate state is also called in Scripture sanctifica- 
tion ; though a distinction is made by the Apos- 
tle Paul between that and being "sanctified 
wholly," a doctrine to be afterward considered. 
In this regenerate or sanctified state, the former 
corruptions of the heart may remain, and strive 
for the mastery; but that which characterizes 
and distinguishes it from the state of a peni- 
tent before justification, before he is " in Christ," 
is, that they are not even his inward habit; 
and that they have no dominion. Faith unites 
to Christ; by it we derive "grace and peace 
from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ," 
and enjoy " the communion of the Holy Ghost;" 
and this Spirit, as the sanctifying Spirit, is 
given to us to " abide with us, and to be in us," 
and then we walk not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit. 



Adoption is the second concomitant of justifi. 
j cation, and is a large and comprehensive blessing. 
To suppose that the apostles take this term 
I from the practice of the Greeks, Romans, and 
: other nations who had the custom of adopting 
'. the children of others, and investing them with 
j all the privileges of their natural offspring, is, 
probably, a refinement. It is much more likely 
that they had simply in view the obvious fact, 
that our sins had deprived us of our sonship, the 
favor of God, and our right to the inheritance of 
eternal life ; that we had become strangers, and 
aliens, and enemies ; and that, upon our return 
to God, and reconciliation with him, our forfeited 
privileges were not only restored, but heightened 
through the paternal love of God. They could 
scarcely be forgetful of the affecting parable of 
the prodigal son ; and it is under the same simple 
view that St. Paul quotes from the Old Testa- 
ment, "Wherefore come out from among them, 
and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch 
not the unclean thing ; and I will receive you, 
and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be 
my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 
Adoption, then, is that act by which we who 
were alienated, and enemies, and disinherited, are 
made the sons of God, and heirs of his eternal 
glory. " If children, then heirs, heirs of God and 
joint-heirs with Christ;" where it is to be re- 
marked, that it is not in our own right, nor in 
right of any work done in us, or which we our- 
selves do, though it be an evangelical work, that 
I we become heirs, but jointly with him, and in his 
right. 

To this state belong freedom from a servile 
\ spirit — we are not servants, but sons ; the special 
! love and care of God our Heavenly Father ; a filial 
; confidence in him ; free access to him at all times 
| and in all circumstances ; the title to the hea- 
venly inheritance ; and the Spirit of adoption, or 
the witness of the Holy Spirit to our adoption, 
which is the foundation of all the comfort we 
can derive from those privileges, as it is the only 
means by which we can know that they are ours. 
The point stated last requires to be explained 
more largely, and the more so as it has often 
been derided as enthusiastic, and often timidly 
explained away by those whose opinions are in 
the main correct. 

The doctrine is, the inward witness or testi- 
mony of the Holy Spirit to the adoption or son- 
ship of believers, from which flows a comfortable 
persuasion or conviction of our present acceptance 
with God, and the hope of our future and eternal 
glory. 

This is taught in several passages of Scrip- 
ture. 

Rom. viii. 15, 16 : " For ye have not received 



CII. XXIV-] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



511 



the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the 
Spirit of adoption, -whereby we cry, Abba, 
Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with 
our spirit that we are the children of God." In 
this passage it is to be remarked: 1. That the 
gift of the Spirit spoken of takes away "fear," 
being opposed to the personified spirit of the 
law, or rather, perhaps, to the Holy Spirit in his 
convincing agency, called the Spirit of bondage, 
producing "fear," a servile dread of God as 
offended. 2. That the "Spirit of God" here 
mentioned is not the personified spirit or genius 
of the gospel, as some would have it, but " the 
Spirit itself" or himself, and hence called in the 
Galatians, in the text adduced below, "The Spirit 
of his Son," which cannot mean the genius of 
the gospel. 3. That he inspires a filial confidence 
in God as our Father, which is opposed to "the 
fear" produced by the "Spirit of bondage." 
4. That he produces this filial confidence, and 
enables us to call God our Father, by witnessing, 
bearing testimony with our spirit, " that we are 
the children of God." 

Gal. iv. 4, 5, 6 : " But when the fulness of the 
time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of 
a woman, made under the law, to redeem them 
that were under the law, that we might receive 
the adoption of sons ; and because ye are sons, 
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into 
your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." 

Here, also, are to be noted: 1. The means of 
our redemption from under (the curse of) the 
law, the incarnation and sufferings of Christ. 
2. That the adoption of sons follows upon our 
actual redemption from that curse, or, in other 
words, our pardon. 3. That upon our pardon, 
the "Spirit of his Son" is "sent forth," and that 
"into our hearts," producing the same effect as 
that mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, 
filial confidence in God — " crying, Abba, Father." 
To these are to be added all those passages, 
so numerous in the New Testament, which ex- 
press the confidence and the joy of Christians: 
their friendship with God ; their confident access 
to him as their God ; their entire union, and de- 
lightful intercourse with him in spirit. 

This doctrine has been generally termed the 
doctrine of assurance ; and perhaps the expres- 
sions of St. Paul, "the full assurance of faith," 
and "the full assurance of hope," may warrant 
the use of the word. But as there is a current 
and generally understood sense of this term 
among persons of the Calvinistic persuasion, im- 
plying that the assurance of our present ac- 
ceptance and sonship is an assurance of our 
final perseverance, and of our indefeasible title 
to heaven, the phrase, a comfortablo persuasion 
or conviction of our justification and adoption, 



arising out of the Spirit's inward and direct 
testimony, is to be preferred ; for this has been 
held as an indubitable doctrine of holy writ by 
Christians who by no means receive the doc- 
trine of assurance in the sense held by the fol- 
lowers of Calvin. 

There is, also, another reason for the sparing 
and cautious use of the term assurance, which 
is, that it seems to imply, though not neces- 
sarily, the absence of all doubt, and shuts out 
all those lower degrees of persuasion which may 
exist in the experience of Christians. For, as 
our faith may not at first, or at all times, be 
equally strong, the testimony of the Spirit may 
have its degrees of strength, and our persuasion 
or conviction be proportionately regulated. Yet 
if faith be genuine, God respects its weaker 
exercises, and encourages its growth, by afford- 
ing measures of comfort, and degrees of this 
testimony. Nevertheless, while this is allowed, 
the fulness of this attainment is to be pressed 
upon every one that believes, according to the 
word of God: "Let us draw near," says St. 
Paul to all Christians, "with full assurance of 
faith." 

It may serve, also, to remove an objection 
sometimes made to the doctrine, and to correct 
an error which sometimes pervades the state- 
ment of it, to observe that this assurance, per- 
suasion, or conviction, whichever term be adopted, 
is not of the essence of justifying faith; that 
is, that justifying faith does not consist in the 
assurance that I am now forgiven, through 
Christ. This would be obviously contradic- 
tory. For we must believe before we can be 
justified ; much more before we can be assured, 
in any degree, that we are justified ; and this 
persuasion, therefore, follows justification, and 
is one of its results. We believe in order to 
justification ; but we cannot be persuaded of our 
forgiveness in order to it, for the persuasion 
would be false. But though we must not only 
distinguish but separate this persuasion of our 
acceptance from the faith which justifies, we 
must not separate but only distinguish it from 
justification itself. With that come, as concomi- 
tants, regeneration, adoption, and, as far as we 
have any information from Scripture, the "Spirit 
of adoption," though, as in all other cases, in 
various degrees of operation. 

On the subject of this testimony of the Holy 
Spirit there are four opinions. 

The first is, that it is twofold: a direct testi- 
mony to or "inward impression on the soul, 
whereby the Spirit of God witnesses to my spirit 
that I am a child of God; that Christ hath 
loved me, and given himself forme; thai 1. even 
I, am reconciled to God;" (Wesley's Sermons;) 



512 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



and an indirect testimony, arising from the work 
of the Spirit in the heart and life, which St. 
Paul calls the testimony of our own spirits ; for 
this is inferred from his expression, "And the 
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit," 
etc. This testimony of our own spirit, or in- 
direct testimony of the Holy Spirit "by and 
through our own spirit, is considered as con- 
firmatory of the first testimony, and is thus ex- 
plained by the same writer : " How am I assured 
that I do not mistake the voice of the Spirit ? 
Even by the testimony of my own spirit, ' by the 
answer of a good conscience toward God :' here- 
by you shall know that you are in no delusion, 
that you have not deceived your own soul. The 
immediate fruits of the Spirit ruling in the 
heart, are love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, 
humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long- 
suffering. And the outward fruits are, the doing 
good to all men, and a uniform obedience to all 
the commands of God." 

The second opinion acknowledges, also, a two- 
fold witness : the witness of the Spirit, which 
consists in the moral effects produced in him 
that believes, otherwise called the fruits of 
the Spirit ; and the witness of our own spirits, 
that is, the consciousness of possessing faith. 
This they call "the reflex act of faith, by which 
a person, conscious of believing, reasons in this 
manner: I know that I believe in Christ; there- 
fore I know that I shall obtain everlasting life." — 
Dr. Hill's Lectures. 

The third opinion is, that there is but one 
witness, the Holy Spirit, acting concurrently 
with our own spirits. "The Spirit of God pro- 
duces those graces in us which are the evidence 
of our adoption: it is he who, as occasion re- 
quires, illuminates our understandings and as- 
sists our memories in discovering and recollecting 
those arguments of hope and comfort within 
ourselves. But God's Spirit doth witness with, 
not without, our spirits and understandings ; in 
making use of our reason in considering and re- 
flecting upon those grounds of comfort which 
the Spirit of God hath wrought in us, and from 
them drawing this comfortable conclusion to 
ourselves, that 'we are the sons of God.'" 
(Bishop Bull.) With this notion is generally 
connected that of the entire imperceptibility of 
the Spirit's operations as distinguished from the 
operations of our own mind, " so that we could 
never have known, unless it had been communi- 
cated to us by Divine revelation, that our souls 
are moved by a Divine power, when we love 
God and keep his commandments." — Mant and 
D'Ovlet's Commentary. 

The following passage from the Rev. Thomas 
Scott's Commentary agrees with Bishop Bull in 



making the witness of the Spirit mediate through 
our own spirit ; and differs chiefly in phraseology. 
It may be taken as the view of a great part of 
those called the evangelical clergy of the pre- 
sent day. "The Holy Spirit, by producing in 
believers the tempers and affections of children, 
as described in the Scriptures, most manifestly 
attests their adoption into God's family. This 
is not done by any voice, immediate revelation, 
or impulse, or merely by any text brought to the 
mind, (for all these are equivocal and delusory,) 
but by coinciding with the testimony of their 
own consciences, as to their uprightness in em- 
bracing the gospel, and giving themselves up to 
the service of God. So that, while they are 
examining themselves as to the reality of their 
conversion, and find scriptural evidence of it, 
the Holy Spirit from time to time shines upon 
his own work, excites their holy affections into 
lively exercise, renders them very efficacious 
upon their conduct, and thus puts the matter be- 
yond doubt; for while they feel the spirit of 
dutiful children toward God, they become satis- 
fied concerning his paternal love to them." 

A fourth opinion allows the direct witness of 

the Spirit, as stated above ; but considers it only 

the special privilege of a few favored persons : 

of which notion it is a sufficient refutation that 

' the apostle, in the texts before quoted, speaks 

' generally of believers, and restrains not the at- 

! tainment from any who seek it. He places it in 

j this respect on the ground of all other blessings 

of the new covenant. 

Of the four opinions just adduced, the first 
only appears to express the true sense of the 
word of God; but that the subject may be fully 
exhibited, we may observe : 1. That by all sober 
divines it is allowed that some comfortable per- 
suasion, or, at least, hope of the Divine favor, 
J is attainable by true Christians, and is actually 
1 possessed by them, except under the influence 
! of bodily infirmities, and in peculiar seasons of 
temptation, and that all true faith is, in some 
1 degree, (though to what extent they differ,) per- 
sonal and appropriating. 

"The third part of repentance is faith, where- 
: by we do apprehend and take hold upon the 
promises of God touching the free pardon and 
forgiveness of our sins ; which promises are 
sealed up unto us with the death and blood- 
shedding of his Son Jesus Christ. For what 
should it avail and profit us to be sorry for our 
sins, to lament and bewail that we have offended 
our most bounteous and merciful Father, or to 
confess and acknowledge our offences and tres- 
passes, though it be done never so earnestly, un- 
less we do steadfastly believe, and be fully per- 
suaded, that God, for his Son Jesus Christ's sake, 



CH. XXIV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



513 



will forgive us all our sins, and put them out of 
remembrance and from his sight? Therefore, 
they that teach repentance without a lively faith 
in our Saviour Jesus Christ, do teach none other 
but Judas's repentance." — Homily on Repentance. 
"Faith is not merely a speculative but a prac- 
tical acknowledgment of Jesus as the Christ — an 
effort and motion of the mind toward God ; when 
the sinner, convinced of sin, accepts with thank- 
fulness the proffered terms of pardon, and in 
humble confidence applying individually to him- 
self the benefit of the general atonement, in the 
elevated language of a venerable father of the 
Church, drinks of the stream which flows from 
the Redeemer's side. The effect is, that in a 
little he is filled with that perfect love of God 
which casteth out fear, — he cleaves to God with 
the entire affection of the soul." — Bishop Hors- 

LET. 

"It is the property of saving faith, that it 
hath a force to appropriate, and make Christ our 
own. Without this, a general remote belief would 
have been cold comfort. ' He loved me, and gave 
himself for me,' saith St. Paul. What saith St. 
Chrysostom ? * Did Christ die only for St. Paul ? 
No : non excludit, sed appropriat ;' he excludes 
not others, but he will secure himself." — Bishop 
Brownrigg. 

2. By those who admit that upon previous 
contrition and faith in Christ an act of justifica- 
tion takes place, by which we are reconciled to 
God, and adopted into his family — a doctrine 
which has been scripturally established — it must 
also be admitted that this act of mercy on the 
part of God is entirely kept secret from us, or 
that, by some means, it is made knowable by us. 
If the former, there is no remedy at all for doubt, 
and fear, and tormenting anticipation, which 
must be great, in proportion as our repentance 
is deep and genuine ; and so there can be no 
comfort, no freedom, no cheerfulness of spirit in 
religion, which contradicts the sentiments of all 
Churches, and all their leading theologians. 
What is still more important, it contradicts the 
Scriptures. 

To all true believers, the Almighty is repre- 
sented as the "God of peace" and "consolation ;" 
as " a Father ;" as " dwelling in them and walk- 
ing in them." Nay, there is a marked distinction 
between the assurances of grace and favor made 
to penitents, and to believers. The declarations as 
to the former are highly consolatory ; but they con- 
stantly refer to some future good designed for 
them by the God before whom they humble them- 
selves, for the encouragement of their seeking 
prayers, and their efforts of trust. " To this man 
will I look, (a Hebraism for showing favor,) saith 
the Lord, that is poor, and of a contrite spirit." 
33 



The "weary and heavy laden" are invited to 
Christ, that he may " give rest unto their souls." 
The apostles exhorted men to repent and be bap- 
tized, in order to the remission of sins. But to all 
who, in the Christian sense, are believers, or who 
have the faith by which we are justified, the lan- 
guage is much higher. ' ' We have peace with God. " 
"We joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
by whom we have received the atonement." They 
are exhorted "to rejoice in the Lord alway." "The 
spirit of bondage" is exchanged for "the Spirit 
of adoption." They are "Christ's." They are 
" children, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with 
Christ." They "rejoice in hope of the glory of 
God." They are " always confident, knowing, that 
while at home in the body, they are absent from 
the Lord, but that when absent from the body, 
they shall be present with the Lord." 

3. If, then, we come to know that this great 
act of forgiveness has taken place in our favor ; 
that it is vouchsafed to us in particular; and 
know this with that degree of conviction which 
lays a sufficient ground of comfort and joy, the 
simple question is, by what means the knowledge 
of this is attained by us ? The general promise 
of pardon alone is, in all the schemes just stated, 
acknowledged to be insufficient for this purpose ; 
for since that promise is suspended upon condi- 
tions, they all profess to explain the means by 
which we may conclude that we are actually and 
personally interested in the benefit of the general 
promise, the conditions being on our part person- 
ally fulfilled. The first opinion attributes this to 
a double testimony, a direct one of the Holy 
Spirit to our minds, and an indirect one of the 
same Spirit, through our own minds, and founded 
upon his moral work in them ; or, what is the 
same thing, the testimony of our own spirit. 
This twofold testimony we think clearly estab- 
lished by the texts above quoted. For the first, 
" the Spirit itself," and the " Spirit of his Son," 
is manifestly the Spirit of God : his office is to 
give testimony, and the object of the testimony 
is to declare that we are the sons of God. When 
also the apostle, in Romans viii. 16, says that this 
Spirit bears witness "with" our spirit, he makes 
our own minds witnesses with him to the same 
fact, though in a different manner. For though 
some writers will have the compound to be used 
here for the simple form of the verb, and render 
it "to witness to our spirit" — and instances of 
this use of the compound verb do occur in the 
New Testament — yet it agrees both with the 
literal rendering of tho word and with other pas- 
sages to conjoin the testimony of the Holy Spirit 
with those confirmatory proofs of our adoption 
which arise from his work within us, and whioh 
may, upon examination of our state, be called 



514 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



the testimony of our own mind or conscience. 
To this testimony the Apostle Paul refers in the 
same chapter, " They that are after the Spirit, 
(do mind) the things of the Spirit." "But ye 
are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be 
that the Spirit of God dwell in you: now if 
any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none 
of his ; for as many as are led by the Spirit of 
God, they are the sons of God." And again, in 
Galatians, " But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are 
not under the law." " But the fruit of the Spirit 
is love, joy," etc. 

4. Two witnesses and a twofold testimony is 
then sufficiently established ; but the main con- 
sideration is, whether the Holy Spirit gives his 
testimony directly to the mind, by impression, 
suggestion, or by whatever other term it may be 
called, or mediately by our own spirits, in some 
such way as is described by Bishop Bull in the 
extract above given; by "illuminating our un- 
derstandings and assisting our memories in dis- 
cussing and recollecting those arguments of hope 
and comfort within ourselves," which arise from 
"the graces which he has produced in us;" or, 
as it is expressed by Mr. Scott, by " shining upon 
his own work, exciting their affections into lively 
exercise, rendering them very efficacious upon 
their conduct," and "thus puts the matter be- 
yond doubt, for while they feel the spirit of duti- 
ful children toward God, they become satisfied 
concerning his paternal love to them." 

To this statement of the doctrine we object, 
that it makes the testimony of the Holy Spirit in 
point of fact but the testimony of our own spirit ; 
and by holding but one witness contradicts St. 
Paul, who, as we have seen, holds two. For the 
testimony is that of our own consciousness of 
certain moral changes which have taken place — 
no other is admitted — and therefore it is but one 
testimony. Nor is the Holy Spirit brought in at 
all, except to qualify our own spirit to give wit- 
ness by assisting its " discernment and memory," 
according to Bishop Bull, and by " shining upon 
his own work," according to Mr. Scott; and so 
there is but one witness, and that ourselves ; for 
though another may assist a witness to prepare 
and arrange his evidence, there is still but one 
deposition, and but one deposer. This is made 
still stronger, since it is supposed by both these 
writers that there is no impression or revelation 
from the Spirit of the fact of our adoption, and 
that he does not in any way which we may dis- 
tinguish from the operation of our own minds 
assist us to prepare this evidence ; for if this as- 
sistance, or shining upon his own work, could be 
ascertained to be from him distinctly, and with 
intention to assure us from these moral changes 
that we are adopted into the family of God, then 



[PART II. 

an immediate collateral impression or revelation 
would be supposed, which both reject. It fol- 
lows, therefore, that we have no other ground to 
conclude those "graces and virtues" which we 
discern in ourselves to be the work of the Spirit 
than the general one, that all good in man is of 
his production, and our repentance and contri- 
tion might as well, on this general ground, be 
concluded to be the evidence of pardon, although 
they arise from our consciousness of guilt and 
our need of pardon. The argument of this opin- 
ion, simply and in fact, is that the Holy Spirit 
works moral changes in the heart, and that these 
are the evidence of our sonship. It goes not 
beyond this : the Holy Spirit is not excluded by 
this opinion as the source of -good in man, he is 
not excluded as qualifying our minds to adduce 
evidence as to certain changes being wrought 
within us ; but he is excluded as a witness, al- 
though he is said so explicitly by the apostle to 
give witness to the fact, not of a moral change, 
but of our adoption. 

5. But further, suppose our minds to be so 
assisted by the Holy Spirit as to discern the 
reality of his work in us ; and in an investiga- 
tion, whether we are or are not accepted of God, 
pardoned by his mercy, and adopted into his fa- 
mily, we depose this as the evidence of it: to 
what degree must this work of the Spirit in us 
have advanced before it can be evidence of this 
fact ? We have seen that it were absurd to al- 
lege contrition, and penitence, and fear, as the 
proofs of our pardon, since they suppose that we 
are still under condemnation: what further work 
of the Spirit, then, is the proof ? The reply to 
this usually is, that though repentance should 
not be evidence of pardon, yet, when faith is 
added, this becomes evidence, since God has de- 
clared in his word that we are "justified by 
faith," and "he that believeth shall be saved." 

To this we reply, that though we should be- 
come conscious of both repentance and faith, 
either by " a reflex act of our own minds," or by 
the assistance of the Spirit "shining upon his 
own work," this would be no evidence of our 
forgiveness : our spirit would, in that case, wit- 
ness the fact of our repenting and believing, but 
that would be no witness to the fact of our adop- 
tion. Justification is an act of God : it is secret 
and invisible : it passes in his own mind : it is 
declared by no outward sign; and no one can 
know, except the Holy Spirit, who knows the 
mind of God, whether we are pardoned or not, 
unless it had been stated in his word that in 
every case pardon is dispensed when repentance 
and faith have reached some definite degree, 
clearly pointed out, so that we cannot fail to 
ascertain that they have reached that degree; 



CH. XXIV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



515 



and, also, unless we were expressly authorized 
to be ourselves the judges of this case, and con- 
fidently and comfortably to conclude our justifi- 
cation. For it is not enough that we have 
faith. Faith, both as assent and confidence, 
has every possible degree : it is capable of mix- 
ture with doubt, and self-dependence ; nor with- 
out some definite and particular characters 
being assigned to justifying faith, could we ever, 
with any confidence, conclude as to our own. 
But we have no such particular description of 
faith ; nor are we authorized, anywhere, to 
make ourselves the judges of the fact whether 
the act of pardon, as to us, has passed the mind 
of God. The apostle, in the passages quoted 
above, has assigned that office to the Holy 
Spirit ; but it is in no part of Scripture appointed 
to us. 

If, then, we have no authority from God to 
conclude that we are pardoned when faith, in 
an uncertain degree, is added to repentance, the 
whole becomes a matter of inference; and we 
argue, that having "repentance and faith," we 
are forgiven : in other words, that these are the 
sufficient evidences of pardon. But repentance 
and faith are exercised in order to pardon; 
that must, therefore, be subsequent to both, and 
they cannot, for that reason, be the evidence of 
it, or the evidence of pardon might be en- 
joyed before pardon is actually received, which 
is absurd. But it has been said, "that we have 
the testimony of God in his word, that when re- 
pentance and faith exist, God has infallibly con- 
nected pardon with them from the moment they 
are perceived to exist, and so it may be surely 
inferred from them." The answer is, that we 
have no such testimony. We have, through the 
mercy of God, the promise of pardon to all who 
repent and believe ; but repentance is not par- 
don, and faith is not pardon, but they are its 
prerequisites ; each is a sine qua non, but surely 
not the pardon itself, nor, as we have just seen, 
can either be considered the evidence of pardon, 
without an absurdity. They are means to that 
end, but nothing more ; and though God has 
"infallibly connected" the blessing of pardon 
with repentance and faith, he has not connected 
it with any kind of repentance, nor with any 
kind of faith ; nor with every degree of repent- 
ance, nor with every degree of faith. How, 
then, shall we ever know whether our repent- 
ance and faith are accepted, unless pardon act- 
ually follow them ? And as this pardon cannot 
be attested by them, for the reason above given, 
and must, therefore, have an attestation of 
higher authority, and of a distinct kind, the 
only attestation conceivable which remains is 
the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Either 



this must be acknowledged, or a painful uncer- 
tainty as to the genuineness or the required mea- 
sure and degree of our repentance and faith, 
quite destructive of "comfort," must remain 
throughout life. 

6. But if neither our repentance, nor even a 
consciousness of faith, when joined with it, can 
be the evidence of the fact of our adoption, it 
has been urged that when all those graces 
which are called the fruits of the Spirit are 
found in our experience, they, at least, must be 
sufficient evidence of the fact, without supposing 
a more direct testimony of the Holy Spirit. 
The "fruits" thus referred to are those enume- 
rated by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians : 
"But the fruit of the Spirit is, love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness," etc. Two 
things will here be granted, and they greatly 
strengthen the argument for a direct testimony 
of the Holy Spirit: that these fruits are found 
only in those who have been received, by the 
remission of their sins, into the Divine favor; 
and that they are fruits of the Spirit of adop- 
tion. The first is proved from the connection 
of the words which follow: "And they that 
are Christ's have crucified the flesh," etc. For 
to be "Christ's," and to be "in Christ," are 
phrases, with the apostle, equivalent to being in 
a state of justification: " There is no condemna- 
tion to them which are in Christ Jesus." The 
second is proved by the connection of the words 
with verse 18 : " But if ye be led by the Spirit, 
ye are not under the law;" for these words are 
exactly parallel to chap. iv. 5, 6 : " To redeem 
them that were under the law, that we might 
receive the adoption of sons; and because ye 
are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his 
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." 
These are, then, the fruits following upon a state 
of pardon, adoption, and our receiving the Spirit 
of adoption. We allow that they presuppose 
pardon; but, then, they as clearly presuppose 
the Spirit of adoption, "sent forth into our 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father;" that is, they not 
only presuppose our pardon, but pardon pre- 
viously attested and made known to us : the per- 
suasion of which conveyed to the mind, not by 
them, but by the Spirit of adoption, is the foun- 
dation of them ; at least, of that " love, joy, and 
peace," which are mentioned first, and must not 
be separated, in the argument, from the other. 
Nor can these "fruits" result from any thing 
but manifested pardon : they cannot themselves 
manifest our pardon, for they cannot exist till 
it is manifested. If we "lovo God," it is bo- 
causc we know him as God reconciled ; if we 
have "joy in God," it is because "we have re- 
ceived the reconciliation;" if wo have peace, it 



516 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



is because, "being justified by faith, we have 
peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
God, conceived of as angry, cannot be the object 
of filial lore : pardon unfelt, supposes guilt and 
fear still to burden the mind, and guilt and 
"joy" and "peace" cannot exist. But by the 
argument of those who make these the media of 
ascertaining the fact* of our forgiveness and 
adoption, we must be supposed to love God, 
while yet we feel him to be angry with us : to 
rejoice and have peace, while the fearful appre- 
hensions of the consequences of unremitted sin 
are not removed ; and if this is impossible, then 
the ground of our love, and joy, and peace is 
pardon revealed and witnessed, directly and im- 
mediately, by the Spirit of adoption. 

It has been said, indeed, that love to God 
may be produced from a consideration of God's 
general love to mankind in his Son, and that, 
therefore, the force of the above argument is 
broken ; but we reply that, in Scripture, Chris- 
tians are spoken of as "reconciled to God;" as 
"translated into the kingdom of his dear Son;" 
as "'children," "heirs," etc.; and, correspond- 
ency with these relations, their love is spoken of 
as love to God as their Father — love to God as 
their God in covenant, who calls himself "their 
God," and them "his people." This is the love 
of God exhibited in the New Testament; and 
the question is, whether such a love of God as 
this can spring from a knowledge of his "general 
love to man," or whether it arises, under the 
Spirit's influence, from a persuasion of his par- 
doning love to us "individually." To clear this, 
we may divide those who hear the gospel, or 
Christians by profession, into the following 
classes: the carnal and careless; the despairing; 
the penitent, who seek God with hope as well 
as desire, now discouraged by their fears, and 
sunk under their load of conscious guilt, and 
again encouraged by a degree of hope ; ' and, 
lastly, those who are "justified by faith, and 
have peace with God." The first class know 
God's " general love to man ;" but it will not be 
pleaded that they love him. The second know 
the "general love of God to man;" but, think- 
ing themselves exceptions from his mercy, can- 
not love him on that account. The third admit 
the same "general love of God to man," and it 
is the foundation of their hope; but does this 
produce love ? The view of his mercy in the 
gift of his Son, and in the general promise, may 
produce a degree of this emotion, or perhaps, 
more properly, of gratitude ; but do they love his 
justice, under the condemnation of which they 
feel themselves ; and his holiness, the awful purity 
of which makes them afraid? If not, they do 
not love God as God; that is, as a whole, in all 



[part II. 

his perfections, the awful as well as the attract- 
ive, the alarming as well as the encouraging ; 
which is, doubtless, the character of the love of 
those who are justified by faith. But, leaving 
this nicer distinction, the main question is, do 
they love him as a Father, as their God in cove- 
nant; with the love which leads up the affec- 
tions of "joy and peace," as well as "gen- 
tleness, goodness, and fidelity?" — for in this 
company, so to speak, the apostle places this 
grace, where it is a " fruit of the Spirit" — " the 
Spirit which they that believe on him should 
receive." This is impossible ; for these seeking, 
though hoping penitents, do not regard God as 
their Father in that special sense in which the 
word is correlative "to children and heirs:" 
they do not regard him as their God in that cove- 
nant which says, "I will be to them a God, and 
they shall be to me a people ; — for I will be merci- 
ful to their unrighteousness, and their sins 
and iniquities I will remember no more." This 
is what they seek, but have not found ; and 
they cannot love God under relations in which 
they know, and painfully feel, that he does not 
yet stand to them. They know his "general 
love to man," but not his pardoning love to them; 
and therefore cannot love him as reconciled to 
them by the death of his Son. It follows, there- 
fore, that the last class only, the "justified by 
faith," bear that love to God which is marked 
by the characters impressed upon it by the apos- 
tles. He is their Father, and they love him as 
his children : he is their God in covenant ; and, 
as they can, in this appropriating sense, call 
him their God, they love him correspondency, 
though not adequately. Their love, therefore, 
rests upon their persuasion of their personal and 
individual interest in his pardoning, adopting, 
and covenant-fulfilling mercy to them; and where 
these benefits are not personally enjoyed, this 
kind of love to God cannot exist. This, then, 
we think, sufficiently establishes the fact that 
the Scriptures of the New Testament, when 
speaking of the love of believers to God, always 
suppose that it arises from a persuasion of God's 
special love to them as individuals, and not merely 
from a knowledge of his "general love" to man- 
kind. 

Others there are who, in adverting to these fruits 
of the Spirit, overlook "love, joy, peace," and 
fix their attention only on "long-suffering, gen- 
tleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temper- 
ance," as those graces which make up our prac- 
tical holiness, and thus argue justification from 
regeneration, which is an unquestionable conco- 
mitant of it. The reply to this is, that the 
fruit of the Spirit is undivided; that all attempts 
at separating it are, therefore, criminal and de- 



CH. 



XXIV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



517 



lusive ; and that where there is not " love, joy, and 
peace," we have no scriptural reason to conclude 
that there is that long-suffering, that gentleness, 
that goodness, etc., of which the apostle speaks, 
or, in other words, that there is that state of re- 
generation which the Scriptures describe; at 
least not ordinarily, for we leave seasons of deep 
spiritual exercise, and cases of physical depres- 
sion, to be treated according to their merits. 
Thus this argument falls to the ground. But 
the same conclusion is reached in another way. 
Persons of this opinion would infer forgiveness 
from holiness ; but holiness consists in habits 
and acts of which love to God is the principle, 
for we first "love God," and then "keep his 
commandments." Holiness, then, is preceded by 
love as its root, and that, as we have seen, by 
manifested pardon. For this love is the love of 
a pardoned sinner to God as a Father, as a God 
in actual covenant, offered on one part, and 
accepted on the other ; and it exists before holi- 
ness, as the principle exists before the act and 
the habit. In the process, then, of inferring our 
justified state from moral changes, if we find 
what we think holiness without love, it is the 
holiness of a Pharisee without principle. If we 
join to it the love which is supposed to be capa- 
ble of springing from God's general love to man, 
this is a principle of which Scripture takes no 
cognizance, and which at best, if it exist at all, 
must be a very mixed and defective sentiment, 
and cannot originate a holiness like that which 
distinguishes the "new creature.'''' It is not, 
therefore, a warrantable evidence of either rege- 
neration or justification. But if we find love 
to God as a God reconciled ; as a Father ; as a 
God who "loves us;" it is plain that, as this 
love is the root of holiness, it precedes it; 
and we must consider God under these lovely 
relations on some other evidence than " the 
testimony of our own spirits," which evidence 
can be no other than that of the Spirit of 
God. 

Thus it is established that the witness of the 
Spirit is direct, and not mediate ; and the fol- 
lowing extracts will show that this is no new or 
unsanctioned doctrine. Luther "was strength- 
ened by the discourse of an old Augustin monk, 
concerning the certainty we may have that our 
sins are forgiven. God likewise gave him much 
comfort in his temptations by that saying of St. 
Bernard : ' It is necessary to believe, first of all, 
that you cannot have forgiveness but by the 
mercy of God ; and next, that through his 
mercy thy sins are forgiven thee.'' This is the 
witness which the Holy Spirit bears in thy heart: 
' Thy sins are forgiven thee. 1 And thus it is 
that, according to the apostle, a man is justified 



freely through faith." (Life of Martin Luther, by 
John Daniel Hermschmid.) 

"In the 88th Psalm is contained the prayer 
of one who, although he felt in himself that he 
had not only man, but also God angry toward 
him, yet he by prayer humbly resorted unto 
God, as the only port of consolation ; and, in the 
midst of his desperate state of trouble, put the 
hope of his salvation in him whom he felt his 
enemy. Howbeit, no man of himself can do 
this, but the Spirit of God, that striketh man's 
heart with fear, prayeth for the man stricken 
and feared with unspeakable groanings. And 
when you feel yourself, and know any other 
oppressed after such sort, be glad ; for after that 
God hath made you know what you be of your- 
self, he will doubtless show you comfort, and declare 
unto you what you be in Christ his only Son; and 
use prayer often, for that is the means whereby 
God will be sought unto for his gifts." — Bishop 
Hooper. See Fox's Acts and Monuments. 

"It is the proper effect of the blood of Christ 
to cleanse our consciences from dead works, to 
serve the living God ; which, if we find it doth, 
Christ is come to us as he is to come ; and the 
Spirit is come, and puts his teste (witness). And 
if we have his teste, we may go our way in peace: 
we have kept a right feast to him, and to the 
memory of his coming. Even so come, Lord 
Jesus; and come, blessed Spirit! and bear 
xoitness to our spirit that Christ's water, and his 
blood, we have our part in both: both in the 
fountain opened for sin and uncleanness, and in 
the blood of the New Testament, the legacy 
whereof is everlasting life in thy kingdom of 
glory." — Bishop Andrews. Sermon of the sending 
of the Holy Ghost. 

"The Spirit which God hath given us to 
assure us that we are the sons of God, to enable 
us to call upon him as our Father." — Hooker. 
Sermon of Certainty of Faith. 

"Unto you, because ye are sons, God hath 
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, 
to the end ye might know that Christ hath built 
you upon a rock immovable, that he hath regis- 
tered your names in the book of life." — Hooker. 
Sermon on Jude. 

"From adoption flows all Christians' joy; for 
the Spirit of adoption is, first, a witness, Rom. 
viii. 16; second, a seal, Eph. iv. 30; third, the 
pledge and earnest of our inheritance, Eph. i. 
14, setting a holy security on the soul, whereby 
it rejoiceth, even in affliction, in hope of glow.'' 
— Archbishop Usher. Sum and Substance of 
Christian Religion. 

"This is one great office of the Holy Ghost, 
to ratify and seal up to us the forgiveness of our 
sins. 'In whom, after yc believed, ye ay ere 



518 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



sealed "with that Holy Spirit of promise,' " etc. 
— Bishop Brownrigg's Sermon on Whitsunday. 

''It is the office of the Holy Ghost to assure 
us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a 
sense of the paternal love of God toward us, to 
give us an earnest of our everlasting inherit- 
ance. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 
by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us. For as 
many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons 
of God. And because we are sons, God hath sent 
forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 
Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit 
of bondage again to fear ; but we have received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
we are the children of God. As, therefore, we 
are born again by the Spirit, and receive from 
him our regeneration, so we are also assured by 
the same Spirit of our adoption; and because 
being sons we are also heirs, heirs of God, and 
joint-heirs with Christ, by the same Spirit we have 
the pledge, or, rather, the earnest of our inherit- 
ance. For he which establisheth us in Christ, and hath 
anointed us, is God, who hath also sealed us, and 
hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts: 
so that we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of pro- 
mise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the 
redemption of the purchased possession." — Bishop 
Pearson on the Creed. 

"This is that rcvevpa vlodeoiac, that Spirit of 
adoption which constituteth us the sons of God, 
qualifying us so to be by dispositions resembling 
God, and filial affections towards him ; certifying 
us that we are so, and causing us, by a free instinct, 
to cry, Abba, Father: running into his bosom of 
love, and flying under the wings of his mercy in 
all our needs and distresses ; whence, as many as 
are led by the Spirit, they (saith Paul) are the sons 
of God, and the Spirit itself beareth witness with 
our spirits that we are the children of God." — Dr. 
Isaac Barrow's Sermon on the Gift of the Holy 
Ghost. 

The second testimony is that of our own spirits, 
"and is a consciousness of our having received, 
in and by the Spirit of adoption, the tempers 
mentioned in the word of God as belonging to 
his adopted children ; that we are inwardly con- 
formed, by the Spirit of God, to the image of his 
Son ; and that we walk before him in justice, 
mercy, and truth, doing the things which are 
pleasing in his sight." (Wesley's Sermons.) But 
this testimony, let it be observed, is not to the 
fact of our adoption directly, but to the fact that 
we have, in truth, received the Spirit of adop- 
tion, and that we are under no delusive impres- 
sions. This will enable us to answer a common 
objection to the doctrine of the Spirit's direct 
witness. This is, that when the evidence of a 



[PART II. 

first witness must be supported by that of a 
second before it can be fully relied on, it appears 
to be by no means of a " decisive and satisfac- 
tory character ; and that it might be as well to 
have recourse at once to the evidence, which, 
after all, seems to sustain the main weight of 
the cause." The answer to this is not difficult: 
if it were, it would weigh nothing against an 
express text of Scripture which speaks of the 
witness of the Holy Spirit and the witness of our 
own spirits. Both must, therefore, be concluded 
necessary, though we should not see their con- 
comitancy and mutual relation. The case is not, 
however, involved in entire obscurity. Our own 
spirits can take no cognizance of the mind of 
God as to our actual pardon, and can bear no 
witness to that fact. The Holy Spirit only, who 
knows the mind of God, can be this witness; and 
if the fact that God is reconciled to us can only 
be known to him, by him only can it be attested 
to us. It cannot, therefore, be "as well for us 
to have recourse at once to the evidence of our 
own spirits;" because, as to this fact, our own 
spirits have no evidence to give. They cannot 
give direct evidence of it ; for we know not what 
passes in the mind of the invisible God: they 
cannot give indirect evidence of the fact ; for no 
moral changes, of which our spirits can be con- 
scious, have been stated in Scripture as the 
proofs of our pardon : they prove that there is 
a work of God in our hearts, but they are not 
proofs of our actual forgiveness. Our own spirits 
are competent witnesses that such moral effects 
have been produced in our hearts and character 
as it is the office of the Holy Spirit to produce : 
they prove, therefore, the reality of the presence 
of the Holy Spirit with us and in us. That 
competent and infallible witness has borne his 
testimony that God is become our Father: he 
has shed abroad his holy comfort — the comfort 
which arises from the sense of pardon ; and his 
moral operation within us, accompanying or im- 
mediately following upon this, making us new 
creatures in Christ Jesus, is the proof that we 
are in no delusion as to the witness who gives 
this testimony being, in truth, the Spirit of God. 
Of the four opinions on this subject entertained 
by divines, the first alone is fully conformable to 
the Scriptures, and ought, therefore, to be be- 
lieved and taught. The second opinion is refuted 
in our examination of the third; for what is 
called "the reflex act of faith" is only a con- 
sciousness of believing, which, we have shown, 
must be exercised in order to pardon, but cannot 
be an evidence of it. The third opinion has 
been examined in all its parts, except the refer- 
ence to "voices and impulses" in the quotation 
from Scott's Commentary, which appears to have 



CH. XXV.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



519 



been thrown in ad captandum. To this we may 
reply, that however the fact of his adoption is 
revealed to man by the Holy Spirit, it is done by 
his influence and inexplicable operation produ- 
cing clear satisfaction and conviction that God is 
reconciled; that "our iniquities are forgiven, 
and our sins covered." The fourth opinion was 
refuted when first stated. 



CHAPTER XXV. 

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 

We have already spoken of some of the lead- 
ing blessings derived to man from the death of 
Christ, and the conditions on which they are 
made attainable. Before the remainder are ad- 
duced, it may be here a proper place to inquire 
into the extent of that atonement for sin made 
by the death of our Saviour, and whether the 
blessings of justification, regeneration, and adop- 
tion are rendered attainable by all to whom the 
gospel is proclaimed. 

This inquiry leads us into what is called the 
Calvinistic controversy — a controversy which has 
always been conducted with great ardor, and 
sometimes with intemperance. I shall endeavor 
to consider such parts of it as are comprehended 
in the question before us, with perfect calmness 
and fairness : recollecting, on the one hand, how 
many excellent and learned men have been ar- 
ranged on each side; and, on the other, that 
while all honor is due to great names, the plain 
and unsophisticated sense of the word of inspired 
truth must alone decide on a subject with respect 
to which it is not silent. 

In the system usually called by the name of 
Calvinism, and which shall subsequently be ex- 
hibited in its different modifications, there are, I 
think, many great errors ; but they have seldom 
been held except in connection with a class of 
vital truths. By many writers who have attacked 
this system, the truth which it contains, as well 
as the error, has often been invaded; and the 
assault itself has been not unfrequently con- 
ducted on principles exceedingly anti-scriptural 
and fatally delusive. These considerations are 
sufficient to inspire caution. The controversy is 
a very voluminous one ; and yet no great dex- 
terity is required to exhibit it with clearness in 
a comparatively small compass. Its essence lies 
in very limited bounds ; and, according to the 
plan of this work, the whole question will bo 
tested, first and chiefly, by scriptural authority. 
High Calvinism, indeed, affects the mode of 
reasoning a priori, and delights in metaphysics. 



To some also it gives most delight to see it op- 
posed on the same ground ; and to such disput- 
ants it will be much less imposing to resort 
primarily, and with all simplicity, to the testi- 
mony of the sacred writings. " It is sometimes 
complained," says one, "that the mind is unduly 
biased in its judgment by a continual reference 
to the authority of the Scriptures. The com- 
plaint is just, if the Scriptures are not the word 
of God ; but if they are, there is an opposite and 
corresponding danger to be guarded against, that 
of suffering the mind to be unduly biased, in the 
study and interpretation of the revealed will of 
God, by the deductions of unaided reason." — Dk. 
Whateley's Essays. 

With respect to the controversy, we may also 
observe that it forms a clear case of appeal to 
the Scriptures ; for to whom the benefits of 
Christ's death are extended, whether to the whole 
of our race or to a part, can be matter of reve- 
lation only ; and the sole province of reason is 
that of interpreting, with fairness, and consist- 
ently with the acknowledged principles of that 
revelation, those parts of it in which the subject 
is directly or incidentally introduced. 

The question before us, put into its most simple 
form, is whether our Lord Jesus Christ did so 
die for all men as to make salvation attainable 
by all men; and the affirmative of this question 
is, we think, the doctrine of Scripture. 

We assume that this is plainly expressed, 

1. In all those passages which declare that 
Christ died "for all men," and speak of his death 
as an atonement for the sins "0/ the whole 
world." 

We have already seen, in treating of our 
Lord's atonement, in what sense the phrase, to 
die "for us," must be understood: that it sig- 
nifies to die in the place and stead of man, as a 
sacrificial oblation, by which satisfaction is made 
for the sins of the individual, so that they be- 
come remissible upon the terms of the evangeli- 
cal covenant. When, therefore, it is said that 
Christ "by the grace of God tasted death for 
every man," and that "he is the propitiation for 
our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the 
sins of the whole world," it can only, we think, 
be fairly concluded from such declarations, and 
from many other familiar texts, in which the 
same phraseology is employed, that, by the death 
of Christ, the sins of every man are rendered re- 
missible, and that salvation is consequently at- 
tainable by every man. Again, our Lord is called 
by St. John "the Saviour of the world;" and is, 
by St. Paul, called " the Saviour of all men." John 
the Baptist points him out as " the Lamb of Con 
which takoth away the sin of the world;" ami 
our Lord himself declares, "God so loved the 



520 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life ; for God sent not his Son 
into the world to condemn the world ; but that the 
world through him might be saved." So also the 
Apostle Paul, "God was in Christ, reconciling 
the world unto himself, not imputing their tres- 
passes unto them." 

2. In those passages which attribute an equal 
extent to the effects of the death of Christ as to 
the effects of the fall of our first parents: "For 
if through the offence of one many be dead, much 
more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, 
which is bj one man, Jesus Christ, hath 
abounded unto many." "Therefore, as by the 
offence of one judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation, even so by the righteousness of 
one the free gift came upon all men unto justifi- 
cation of life." 1 

As the unlimited extent of Christ's atonement 
to all mankind is plainly expressed in the above- 
cited passages, so is it, we also assume, neces- 
sarily implied, 

1. In those which declare that Christ died not 
only for those that are saved, but for those who 
do or may perish : so that it cannot be argued, 
from the actual condemnation of men, that they 
were excepted from many actual, and from all 
the offered, benefits of his death. "And through 
thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for 
whom Christ died?" " Destroy not him with thy 
meat, for whom Christ died." "False teachers, 
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even 
denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon 
themselves swift destruction." So also in the case 
of the apostates mentioned in the Epistle to the 



1 To these might be added all those passages which 
ascribe the abolition of bodily death to Christ, who, in 
this respect, repairs the effect of the transgression of Adam, 
which he could only do in consequence of having redeemed 
that body from the power of the grave. This argument '• 
may be thus stated. It is taught in Scripture that all 
shall rise from the dead. It is equally clear, from the 
game authority, that all shall rise in consequence of the 
interposition of Christ, the second Adam, the representa- 
tive and Redeemer of man — "As in Adam all die. even so 
in Christ 6hall all be made alive." It follows, therefore, 
that if the wicked are raised from the dead, it is in con- 
sequence of the power which Christ, as Redeemer, acquired 
over them, and of his right in them. That this resurrec- 
tion is to them a curse was not in the purpose of God, but 
arises from their wilful rejection of the gospel. To be re- 
stored to life is in itself a good — that it is turned to an evil 
is their own fault; and if they are not raised from the 
dead in consequence of Christ's right in them, acquired by ' 
purchase, it behooves those of a different opinion to show 
under what other constitution than that of the gospel a 
resurrection of the body is provided for. The original law 
contains no intimation of this, nor of a general judgment, ) 
which latter supposes a suspension of the sentence incon- : 
sistent with the strictly legal penalty, " In the day that i 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 



Hebrews: "Of how much sorer punishment, 
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath 
trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath 
counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he 
was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done 
despite unto the Spirit of grace ?" If any dis- 
pute should here arise as to the phrase, "where- 
with he was sanctified," reference may be made 
to chap. vi. of the same epistle, where the same 
class of persons, whose doom is pronounced to 
be inevitable, are said to have been "once en- 
lightened;" to have "tasted of the heavenly 
gift;" to have been "made partakers of the 
Holy Ghost;" to have "tasted the good word of 
God," and "the powers of the world to come:" 
all which expressions show that they were placed 
on the same ground with other Christians as to 
their interest in the new covenant — a point to 
which we shall again recur. 

2. In all those passages which make it the 
duty of men to believe the gospel; and place 
them under guilt, and the penalty of death, for 
rejecting it. "He that believeth on the Son 
hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not 
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God 
abideth on him." "But these are written, that 
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God; and that believing ye might have life 
through his name." "He that believeth not is 
condemned already, because he hath not believed 
in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." 
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; 
but he that believeth not, shall be damned." 
" How shall we escape if we neglect so great sal- 
vation?" "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed 
from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming 
fire, taking vengeance on them that know not 
God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." The plain argument from all 
such passages is, that the gospel is commanded 
to be preached to all men ; that it is preached to 
them that they may believe in Christ, its Author; 
that this faith is required of them, in order to 
their salvation, "that believing ye might have 
life through his name;" that they have power 
thus to believe to their salvation : (from whatever 
source or by whatever means this power is de- 
rived to them, need not now be examined : it is 
plainly supposed ; for not to believe is reckoned 
to them as a capital crime, for which they are 
condemned already, and reserved to final con- 
demnation;) and that having power to believe, 
they have the power to obtain salvation, which, 
as it can be bestowed only through the merits 
of Christ's sacrifice, proves that it extends to 
them. The same conclusion, also, follows from 



CH. XXV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



521 



the nature of that faith which is required by the 
gospel in order to salvation. This, we have al- 
ready seen, is not mere assent to the doctrine of 
Christ's sacrificial death, but personal trust in it 
as our atonement ; which those, surely, could not 
be required by a God of truth to exercise, if that 
atonement did not embrace them. Nor could 
they be guilty for refusing to trust in that which 
was never intended to be the object of their 
trust; for if God so designed to exclude them 
from Christ, he could not command them to trust 
in Christ ; and if they are not commanded thus 
to trust in Christ, they do not violate any com- 
mand by not believing ; and, in this respect, are 
innocent. 

3. In all those passages in which men's failure 
to obtain salvation is placed to the account of 
their own opposing wills, and made wholly their 
own fault. "How often would I have gathered 
thy children together, even as a hen gathereth 
her chickens under her wings, and ye would 
not!" "And ye will not come to me that ye might 
have life." "And bring upon themselves swift 
destruction." "Whosoever will, let him take 
the water of life freely." It is useless here to 
multiply quotations, since the New Testament so 
constantly exhorts men to come to Christ, re- 
proves them for neglect, and threatens them with 
the penal consequences of their own folly : thus 
uniformly placing the bar to their salvation, just 
where Christ places it, in his parable of the sup- 
per, in the perverseness of those who, having 
been bidden to the feast, would not come. From 
these premises, then, it follows, that since the 
Scriptures always attribute the ruin of men's 
souls to their own will, and not to the will of 
God, we ought to seek for no other cause of 
their condemnation. We can know nothing on 
this subject but what God has revealed. He has 
declared that it is not his will that men should 
perish: on the contrary, "He willeth all men to 
be saved;" and therefore commands us to pray 
for "all men :" he has declared that the reason 
they are not saved is not that Christ did not die for 
them, but that they will not come to him for the 
"life" which he died to procure for " the world;" 
and it must therefore be concluded that the sole 
bar to the salvation of all who are lost is in them- 
selves, and not in any such limitation of Christ's 
redemption as supposes that they were not com- 
prehended in its efficacy and intention. 

It will now be necessary for us to consider 
what those who have adopted a different opinion 
have to urge against these plain and literal de- 
clarations of Scripture. It is their burden that 
they are compelled to explain these passages in 
a more limited and qualified sense than the letter 
of them and its obvious meaning teaches ; and 



that they must do this by inference merely ; for it 
is not even pretended that there is any text what- 
ever to be adduced, which declares as literally 
that Christ did not die for the salvation of all, 
as those which declare that he did so die. We 
have no passages, therefore, to examine, which, 
in their clear literal meaning, stand opposed 
to those which we have quoted, so as to pre- 
sent apparent contradictions which require to 
be reconciled by concession on one side or the 
other. This is at least, prima facie, strongly in 
favor of those who hold that, in the same sense, 
and with the same design, "Jesus Christ tasted 
death for every man." 

To our first class of texts it is objected, that 
the terms "all men," and "the world," are some- 
times used in Scripture in a limited sense. 

This may be granted, without injury to the 
argument drawn from the texts in question. But 
though in Scripture, as in common language, all 
and every, and such universals, are occasionally 
used with limitation when the connection prevents 
any misunderstanding, yet they are, neverthe- 
less, strictly universal terms, and are most fre- 
quently used as such. The true question is, 
whether, in the places above cited, they can be 
understood except in the largest sense; whether 
"all men," and "the world," can be interpreted 
of the elect only, that is, of some men of all 
countries. 

We may confidently deny this, — 
1. Because the universal sense of the terms, 
"all," and "all men," and "every man," is con- 
firmed, either by the context of the passages in 
which they occur, or by other scriptures. When 
Isaiah says, "All we like sheep have gone astray; 
and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us 
all;" he affirms that the iniquity of all those who 
have gone astray was laid on Christ. When St. 
Paul says, "We thus judge, that if one died for 
all, then were all dead;" he argues the univer- 
sality of spiritual death, from the universality of 
the means adopted for raising men to spiritual 
life : a plain proof that it was received as an un- 
disputed principle in the primitive Church, that 
Christ's dying for all men was to be taken in its 
utmost latitude, or it could not have been made 
the basis of the argument. When the same 
apostle calls Christ the "Saviour of all men, 
specially of those that believe," he manifestly 
includes both believers and unbelievers, that is, 
all mankind, in the term "all men," and declares 
that Christ is their Saviour, though the full ben- 
efits of his salvation are reoeived through faith 
only by them that believe. When again he de- 
clares that, "As by the offence of one, judgment 
camo upon all men to condemnation, kyk.n so 
by the rightoousness of one, the free gift came 



522 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



upon all men, (elc,) in order to justification of 
life," the force of the comparison is lost if the 
term " all men " is not taken in its full extent ; 
for the apostle is thus made to say, As by the 
offence of one, judgment came upon all hen, 
even so by the righteousness of one, the free 
gift came upon a few men. Nor can it be ob- 
jected that the apostle uses the terms, "many," 
and "all men," indiscriminately in this chapter; 
for there is in this no contradiction, and the ob- 
jection is in our favor. All men are many, though 
many are not in every case all. But the term, 
"many," is taken by him in the sense of all, as 
appears from the following parallels: "death 
passed upon all men;" "many be dead;" "the 
gift by grace hath abounded unto many;" "the 
free gift came upon all men;" "by one man's 
disobedience many were made (constituted) sin- 
ners," made liable to death; "so by the obedi- 
ence of one shall many be made (constituted) 
righteous." On the last passage we may observe 
that "many," or "the many," must mean all 
men in the first clause ; nor is it to be restricted 
in the second, as though by being "made righte- 
ous," actual, personal justification were to be 
understood ; for the apostle is not speaking of 
believers individually, but of mankind collec- 
tively, and the opposite conditions in which the 
race itself is placed by the offence of Adam and 
the obedience of Christ in all its generations. 

It is equally impracticable to restrict the 
phrases, "the world," "the whole world," and 
to paraphrase them the "world of the elect;" 
and yet there is no other alternative ; for either 
"the whole world" means those elected out of 
it, or else Christ died in an equal sense for every 
man. "God so loved the world, that he gave his 
only-begotten Son," etc. Here, if the world 
mean not the elect only, but every man, then 
every man was "so loved" by God, that he gave 
his own Son for his redemption. To say that 
the world, in a few places, means the Koman 
empire, and in others Judea, is nothing to the 
purpose, unless it were meant to affirm that 
the elect were the people of Judea, or those of 
the Roman empire only. It proves, it is true, 
a hyperbolical use of the term in both instances ; 
but this cannot be urged in the case before us ; 
for,— 

1. The elect are never called "the world" in 
Scripture; but are distinguished from it. "I 
have chosen you out of the world ; therefore the 
world hateth you." 

2. The common division of mankind, in the 
New Testament, is only into two parts — the dis- 
ciples of Christ, and "the world." "If ye were 
of the world, the world would love his own." 
"They are not of the world, even as I am not of 



the world." "We know that we are of God, and 
the whole world lieth in wickedness." 

3. When the redemption of Christ is spoken of, 
it often includes both those who had been chosen 
out of the world, and those who remained still 
of the world. "And you hath he reconciled," 
say the apostles to those that had already be- 
lieved; and as to the rest, "God was in Christ, 
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing 
their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed 
unto us the word of reconciliation," plainly that 
they might beseech this "world" to be recon- 
ciled to God ; so that both believers and unbe- 
lievers were interested in the reconciling ministry, 
and the work of Christ. "And he is the propi- 
tiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
also for the sins of the whole world:" words can- 
not make the case plainer than these, since this 
same writer, in the same epistle, makes it evident 
how he uses the term "world," when he affirms 
that "the whole world lieth in wickedness," in 
contradistinction to those who knew that they 
were "of God." 

4. In the general commission before quoted, 
the expression "world" is connected with uni- 
versal terms which carry it forth into its utmost 
latitude of meaning. "Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel (the good news) to every 
creature;" and this too in order to his believing 
it, that he may be saved : "he that believeth 
shall be saved ; and he that believeth not (this 
good news preached to him that he might be 
saved) shall be damned." 

5. All this is confirmed from the gross absurd- 
ity of this restricted interpretation when applied 
to several of the foregoing passages. " For God 
so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish." Now, if the world here means the elect 
world, or the elect not yet called out of it, then 
it is affirmed that "whosoever" of this elect 
body believeth shall not perish ; which plainly 

| implies, that some of the elect might not believe, 
and therefore perish, contrary to their doctrine. 
This absurd consequence is still clearer from 
the verses which immediately follow. John iii. 
17, 18, "For God sent not his Son into the world 
to condemn the world, but that the world through 
him might be saved. He that believeth on him 
is not condemned; but he that believeth not is 
condemned already." Now here we must take 
the term "world," either extensively for all man- 
kind, or limitedly for the elect. If the former, 
then all men "through him may be saved," but 
only through faith : he, therefore, of this world 
that believeth may be saved ; but he of this 
world that believeth not is condemned already." 
The sense is here plain and consistent ; but if, 



CII. XXV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



523 



on the other hand, we take "the world" to mean 
the elect only, then he of this elect world that 
believeth may be saved, and he of the elect world 
that " believeth not is condemned;" so that the 
restricted interpretation necessarily supposes, 
that elect persons may remain in unbelief, 
and be lost. The same absurdity will follow 
from a like interpretation of the general commis- 
sion. Either "all the world" and "every crea- 
ture" mean every man, or the elect only. If 
the former, it follows, that he of this "world," 
any individual among those included in the 
phrase, "every creature," who believes, "shall 
be saved," or, not believing, "shall be damned:" 
if the latter, then he of the elect, any individual 
of the elect, who believes, "shall be saved," and 
any individual of the elect who believes not, 
"shall be damned." Similar absurdities might 
be brought out from other passages ; but if these 
are candidly weighed, it will abundantly appear, 
that texts so plain and explicit cannot be turned 
into such consequences by any true method of 
interpretation, and that they must, therefore, be 
taken in their obvious sense, which unequivo- 
cally expresses the universality of the atonement. 

It has been urged, indeed, that our Lord him- 
self says, John xvii. 9, "I pray for them: I 
pray not for the world, but for them which thou 
hast given me." But will they here interpret 
"the world" to be the world of the elect? if so, 
they cut even them off from the prayers of Christ. 
But if by "the world" they would have us un- 
derstand the world of the non-elect, then they 
will find that all the prayers which our Lord 
puts up for those whom "the Father hath given 
him," had this end, that they, the non-elect 
" 'world,' may believe that thou hast sent me," 
verse 21 : let them choose either side of the alter- 
native. The meaning of this passage is, however, 
made obvious by the context. Christ, in the 
former part of his intercession, as recorded in 
this chapter, prays exclusively, not for his Church 
in all ages, but for his disciples then present with 
him; as appears plain from verse 12, "While I 
was with them in the world, I kept them in thy 
name;" but he was only with his first disciples, 
and for them he exclusively prays in the first in- 
stance; then, in verse 20, he prays for all who, 
in future, should believe on him through their 
words; and he does this in order that "the 
world might believe." Thus "the world," in its 
largest sense, is not cut off, but expressly in- 
cluded in the benefits of this prayer. 

John x. 15, "I lay down my life for the sheep," 
is also adduced, to prove that Christ died for 
none but his sheep. But the consequence will 
not hold ; for there is no inconsistency between 
his haying died for them that believe, and also 



for them that believe not. Christ is said to be 
"the Saviour of all men, specially of those 
that believe ;" two propositions which the apos- 
tle held to be perfectly consistent. The very 
context shows that Christ laid down his life for 
others besides those whom in that passage he 
calls "the sheep." The sheep here intended, as 
the discourse will show, were those of the Jewish 
"fold;" for he immediately adds, "other sheep 
I have, which are not of this fold," clearly mean- 
ing the Gentiles : "them also I must bring." He, 
therefore, laid down his life for them also ; for 
the sheep in the fold, who "knew his voice, and 
followed him," and for them out of the fold, 
who still needed "bringing in;" even for "the 
lost, whom he came to seek and save," which is 
the character of all mankind : "all we like sheep 
have gone astray ;" and "the Lord hath laid on 
him the iniquity of us all." 

A restrictive interpretation of the first two 
classes of texts we have quoted above, may then 
be affirmed directly and expressly to contradict 
the plainest declarations of God's own word. For 
it is not true, upon this interpretation, that God 
loved "the world," if the majority he loved not; 
nor is it true that Christ was not "sent to con- 
demn the world," if he was sent even to enhance 
its condemnation ; nor that the gospel, as the 
gospel, can be preached "to every creature," if 
to the majority it cannot be preached as "good 
tidings of great joy to all people;" for it is sad 
and doleful tidings, if the greater part of the 
human race are shut out from the mercies of 
their Creator. If, then, in this interpretation 
there is so palpable a contradiction of the words 
of inspiration itself, the system which is built 
upon it cannot be sustained. 

As to the texts which we have urged, as ne- 
cessarily implying the unrestricted extent of the 
death of Christ, the usual answers to those which 
speak of Christ having died for them that perish, 
may be briefly examined. "Destroy not him 
with thy meat, for whom Christ died." Rom. 
xiv. 15. Him, says Poole, (Annotations,) for 
whom, "in the judgment of charity," we are to 
presume Christ died. To say nothing of the 
danger of such unlicensed paraphrases, in the 
interpretation of Scripture, it is obvious that this 
exposition entirely annuls the motive by which 
the apostle enforces his exhortation. Why are 
we not to be an occasion of sin to our brother ? 
The answer is, lest we "destroy him;" and, in 
the parallel place, 1 Cor. viii. 11, lest "he 
perish." But what is the aggravation of the 
offence? Truly, that "Christ died for him:" 
and so we havo no tenderness for a soul on whom 
Christ had so much compassion as to die for his 
salvation. Let the text, then, be tried, as para- 



524 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



phrased by Poole and other Calvinis:; : I - 
5:7 :t not him for whom, in the judgment of 
charity, it may be concluded Christ died :" and 
it turns the motive the other -way. For if I ad- 
mit that none can be destroyed for "whom Christ 
died, then, in proportion to the charity of my 
judgment that any individual is of this number, 
I ::. y be the less : ration s of ensnaring hi 5 son- 
science in indifferent matters, since at leas: :L:^ 
i ; : 21 tain, that he cannot perish, and I cannot 
be guilty of the aggravated offence of destroying 
him who was an object of the compassion of 
Christ. Who can suppose that the apostle would 
thus counteract his own design? or that he 
should seriously admonish his readers not to do 
that which was impossible, if, in fact, he taught 
them that Christ died only for the elect; and 
that they for whom he died could never perish ? 
Another commentator, of the same scho.i. ex- 
plains this as a caution against doing that which 
had a "tendency to the ruin of one for whom 
Christ died : not that it implies that the w : k 
brother would actually r erish." Rev. T. Scott's 
Notes.) But in this case, also, as it is assumed 
that it was a doctrine taught by St. Paul, and 

ived by the churches to whom he wrote, that 
the elect could not perish, the motive is taken 
away upon which the admonition is grounded. 
For if the persons to whom the apostle wrote 
knew that the weak brother, for whom Christ 
died, could not perish, then nothing which they 
could do had any " tendency" to destroy him. 
It might injure him, disturb his mind, lead him 
ink sin, destroy his comforts; all or any of 
which would have been appropriate motives on 
which to have urged the caution; but nothing 
d have even a tendency to destroy him whose 
salvation is fixed by an unalterable decree. 
Mr. Scott is, however, evidently not satisfied 
with his own interpretation ; and gives a painful 
example of the influence of a preconceived system 
in commenting upon Scripture, by charging the 

:'_e himself with careless writing. "We 
may. however, observe, that the apostles did not 

: in that exact, systematical style which 
some affect, otherwise they would scrupulously 
}.:.■:-: r.: ::::■: 2 ,•:.:'. -:^ --:i :::~.?." Hi: is r:.:Ler in 
the manner of Priestley and Belsham, than that 
of an orthodox commentator ; but it does homage 
to the force of truth by turning away from it, 
and by tacitly acknowledging that the Scriptures 
cannot be Calvinistically interpreted. The same 
commentators, following, as they do, in the train 
of the Calvinistic divines in general, may fur- 
also, the answer to the argument, from 2 
Peter ii. 1: " Denying the Lord that bought 
them, and bring upon themselves swift de- 
struction." Poole gives us three interpretations : 



[PAET LT. 

the first is, " the Lord that bought Israel : 
Egypt;" as though St. Peter could be speaking 
of the Mosaic, and not of the Christian redemp- 
tion; and as though the Judaizing teachers, 
supposing the apostle to speak of them, denied 
the God of the Jews, when it was their obi-;:: : : 
set up his religion against that of Christ. The 
second is, that "they were bought," or re- 
deemed, by Christ, from temporal death, their 
fires having been spared; but we have no such 
doctrine in Scripture as that the long-suffering 
of wicked men, procured by Christ's redemption, 
is unconnected in its intent with their eternal 
salvation. The barren fig-tree was spared at the 
intercession of Christ, that means might be taken 
with it to make it fruitful; and in this same 
Zristie ::' St Peter, he teaches us to "account 
the long-suffering of our Lord salvation .•" mean- 
ing, doubtless, in its tendency and intention. 
To this we may add, that there is nothing in the 
context to warrant this notion of mere temporal 
redemption. The third interpretation is, " that 
they denied the Lord, whom they professed to 
have bought them.' 3 This also is gratuitous, and 
gives a very different sense from that which the 
words of the apostle convey. But it is argued 
that the offence would be the same in denying 
Christ, whether he really died for them, or that 
they had professed to believe he died for them. 
Certainly not. Their crime, as it is put by the 
apostle, is not the denying of their former pro- 
fession, or denying Christ, whom they formerly 
professed to have bought them: but denying 
Christ, who had actually bought them, and whom, 
for that reason, they ought never to have denied, 
but confessed at the hazard of their lives. Fur- 
ther, ii they merely denied that which they for- 
merly professed, namely, that Christ had bought 
them, and, in point of fact, he never did buy 
them, they were in error when they professed to 
believe that he bought them, and spoke the truth 
only when they denied it ; and if it be said that 
they ii^.r~ not but he had bought them, when 
they ienied him, this might be a reason for their 
not being rewarded for renouncing an error, as 
being done unwittingly; but can be no reason 
_eir being punished, though unwittingly they 
went back to the truth of the case. There can 
be no great guilt in our denying Christ, if C - 
never died for us. 

Air. Scott partly adopts, and partly rejects 
Poole's solution of this scriptural diffi 
But as he charged St. Paul with want of exact- 
ness in writing to the Romans, so also St. Peter, 
in the passage before us. comes in for his share 
of the same censure. "It was not the manner 
of the sacred writers to express themselves with 
that systematic exactness which many now 



CH. XXV.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



525 



affect." The question is not, however, one of 
systematic exactness, but of common intelligible 
"writing. Mr. Scott's observation on this pas- 
sage is, "that Christ's ransom was of infinite 
sufficiency ; and the proposal of it, in Scripture, 
general ; so that men are addressed according to 
their profession ; but that Christ only intended 
to redeem those whom he foresaw would event- 
ually be saved." [Notes on 2 Peter.) On this 
we may remark: 1. That the sufficiency of 
Christ's redemption is not in question ; but the 
redemption itself of these deniers of Christ : he 
is called "the Lord that bought them." In that 
sufficiency, too, Mr. Scott affirms, in fact, that 
they had no interest; for Christ did not "intend 
to redeem them:" on this showing, therefore, 
the Lord did not "buy them," which contradicts 
the apostle. 2. That the " proposal of the bene- 
fits of Christ's redemption is general," and that 
men are addressed, accordingly, as those who 
are interested in it, we grant, and feel how well 
this accords with the doctrine of general redemp- 
tion; but the difficulty lies with those who hold 
the limitation of Christ's redemption to the elect 
only, to explain, not merely how it is that men 
are addressed generally, but how the sins of 
those who perish can be aggravated by the cir- 
cumstance of Christ's having bought them, if he 
did not buy them; and how they can be pun- 
ished for rejecting him, if they could never re- 
ceive him, so as to be saved by him. This 
aggravation of their offence, by the circumstance 
of Christ having bought them, is the doctrine of 
the text, of the force of which the above inter- 
pretations are manifest evasions. 

"We come now to the case of the apostates, 
mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, vi. 4-8, 
and x. 26-31. With respect to these passages, 
it is agreed that they speak of the ultimate and 
eternal condemnation and rejection of the per- 
sons mentioned in them. The question then is, 
whether Christ died for them, as he died for such 
as persevere ? which is to be determined by an- 
other question, whether they were ever true be- 
lievers, and had received saving grace ? If this 
be allowed, the proposition is established, that 
Christ died for them that perish; but in order 
to arrest this conclusion, all Calvinistic divines 
agree in denying that the persons referred to by 
the apostle, and against whom his terrible denun- 
ciations are directed, were ever true believers, 
or capable of becoming such ; and here again 
we have another pregnant instance of the violence 
done to the obvious meaning of the word of 
God, through the influence of a preconceived 
fiystcm. For, 

1. It will not be denied that the Hebrews, to 
whom the epistle was addressed, were, in the 



main at least, true believers ; and that the pas- 
sages in question were written to preserve them 
from apostasy ; of which the rejection, and hope- 
less punishment, described by the apostle, is 
represented as the consequence. But if St. 
Paul had taught them, as he must have done, if 
Calvinism be the doctrine of the New Testament, 
that they never could so fall away, and so per- 
ish, this was no warning at all to them. To 
suppose he held out that as a terror, which he 
knew to be impossible, and had taught them also 
to be impossible, is the first absurdity which the 
Calvinistic interpretation involves. 

2. It will not be denied that he speaks of 
these wretched apostates as deterring examples 
to the true believers among the Hebrews ; but 
as such apostates never were believers, and were 
not even rendered capable, by the grace of God, 
of becoming such, they could not be admoni- 
tory examples. To assume that the apostle, for 
the sake of argument and admonition, supposes 
believers to be in the same circumstances and 
case as those who never were and never could be 
believers, and when he had instructed them that 
their cases could never be similar, is the second 
absurdity. 

3. The apostates in question are represented, 
by the apostle, "as falling away" from "re- 
pentance," and from Christ's "sacrifice for sins." 
The advocates of the system of partial redemp- 
tion affirm, that they fell away only from their 
profession of repentance and doctrinal belief of 
Christ's sacrifice for sins, in which they never 
had, and never could have, any interest. Yet 
the apostle places the hopelessness of their state 
on the impossibility of "renewing them again to 
repentance;" which proves that he considered 
their first repentance genuine and evangelical ; 
because the absence of such a repentance as 
they had at first, is given as the reason of the 
hopelessness of their condition. He moreover 
heightens the case, by alleging that there re- 
mained "no more sacrifice for sins;" which as 
plainly proves that, before their apostasy, there 
was a sacrifice for their sins, and that they had 
only cut themselves off from its benefits by 
" wilfully" renouncing it ; in other words, that 
Christ died for them, and that they had placed 
themselves out of the reach of the benefit of his 
death, by this one act of aggravated apostasy. 
The contrast lies between a hopeful and a hopeless 
case. Theirs was once a hopeful case, because 
they had "repented," and because there was 
then a "sacrifice for sins;" afterward it became 
hopeless, because it was "impossible to renew 
them again unto repentance," and the sacrifice 
for sin no more remained for them: they had 
not only renounced their profession oi' it, but 



526 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



had renounced the sacrifice itself, by renouncing 
Christianity. Now, so to interpret the apostle 
as to make him describe the awful condition of 
apostates as a "falling away" into a state of 
hopelessness, when, if Calvinism be the doctrine 
of the New Testament, their case was never 
really hopeful, but was as hopeless, as to their 
eternal salvation, before as after their apostasy, 
is the third absurdity. 

4. But it is plain that theirs had been a state 
of actual salvation, which could only result from 
their having had an interest in the death of 
Christ. The proof of this lies in what the apos- 
tle affirms of the previous state of those who had 
finally apostatized, or might so apostatize. They 
were "enlightened:" this, the whole train of 
Calvinistic commentators tell us, means a mere 
speculative reception of the doctrine of the 
gospel: they had "tasted of the heavenly gift," 
and of "the good word of God;" that is, say 
Poole and others, "they tasted, not digested: 
they had superficial relishes of joy and peace," 
and are to be compared "to the stony-ground 
hearers, who received the word with joy." "And 
were made partakers of the Holy Ghost;" that 
is, say some commentators of this class, in his 
operations, "trying how far a natural man may 
be raised, and not have his nature changed:" 
[Poole in loc. :) others, "by the communication 
of miraculous powers." They had "tasted of 
the powers of the world to come ;" that is, they 
had felt the powerful doctrines of the gospel, 
but as all reprobates may feel them — sometimes 
powerfully convincing their judgment, at others 
troubling their consciences. "All these things," 
says Scott, [Notes,) "often take place in the 
hearts and consciences of men, who yet continue 
unregenerate." These interpretations are un- 
doubtedly forced upon these authors by the sys- 
tem they have adopted; but it unfortunately 
happens, for them, that the apostle uses no term 
less strong, in describing the religious experience 
of these apostates, than he does in speaking of 
that of true believers. They were '■'■enlightened" 
is said of these apostates: "the eyes of your 
understanding being enlightened" is said of the 
Ephesians; and "being turned from darkness to 
light" is the characteristic of all believers. The 
apostates "tasted the heavenly gift:" this, too, 
is affirmed of true believers — "Much more they 
which receive abundance of grace, and of the 
gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, 
Jesus Christ." Rom. v. 17. To be made "par- 
takers of the Holy Ghost" is also the common 
distinctive character of all true Christians. "If 
any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none 
of his:" "But ye are not in the flesh, but in 
the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell 



[part II. 



in you." "To taste the heavenly gift" and "the 
good word of God" is also made the mark of true 
Christianity: "If so be ye have tasted that the 
Lord is gracious." Finally, "the powers of the 
world to come," that is, of the gospel dispensa- 
tion, or the power of the gospel, stand in pre- 
cisely the same ease. This gospel is the '■'■power 
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." 
Since, then, the apostle expresses the prior ex- 
perience of these apostates by the same terms 
and phrases as those by which he designates the 
work of God in the hearts of those whose Christ- 
ianity is by all acknowledged to be genuine, 
where is the authority on which these commen- 
tators make him describe, not a saving work in 
the hearts of these apostates, during the time 
they held fast their profession, but a simulated 
one ? They have clearly no authority for this at 
all; and their comments arise not out of the 
argument of St. Paul, nor out of his terms or 
phrases, or the connection of these passages with 
the rest of the discourse, but out of their own 
theological system alone: in other words, out of 
a mere human opinion, which supplies a mean- 
ing to the apostle of which he gives not the most 
distant intimation. To make the apostle describe 
the falling away from a mere profession, unac- 
companied with a state of grace, by terms which 
he is constantly using to describe and character- 
ize a state of grace, is the fourth absurdity. 

We mark, also, two other absurdities. The 
interpretations above given are below the force 
of the terms employed, and they are above the 
character of reprobates. 

They are below the force of the terms employed. 
"To '■Haste the heavenly gift" is not a mere 
intellectual or sentimental approval of it; for 
this heavenly gift is distinguished both from the 
Holy Spirit and from the word of God, mentioned 
afterward, which leaves us no choice but to in- 
terpret it of Christ ; and then, to taste of Christ 
is to receive his grace and mercy : " If so be ye 
have tasted that the Lord is gracious." Thus, 
the Greek fathers, and many later divines, un- 
derstand it of the remission of sins ; which 
interpretation is greatly confirmed by Rom. v., 
where "the gift," "the free gift," and "the gift 
by grace" are used both for the means of our 
justification, and for justification itself. To 
"taste the heavenly gift," then, is, in this sense, 
so to taste that the Lord is gracious as to receive 
the remission of sins. To be made "partakers 
of the Holy Ghost" follows this in the usual 
order of describing the work of God in the 
heart. It is the fruit of faith, the Spirit of 
adoption and sanctification — the Spirit in his 
comforting and renewing influences following 
our justification. To restrain this participation 



CH. XXV.] 

of the Holy Ghost to the endowment of miracu- 
lous powers, requires it to be previously esta- 
blished, either, 1. That all professing Christians, 
in that age, were thus endowed with miraculous 
powers, of which there is no proof; or, 2. That 
only those who were thus endowed with miracu- 
lous gifts were capable of this aggravated apos- 
tasy ; and then the apostle's warning would not 
be a general one, even to the Christians of the 
apostolic age, nor even to all the believing He- 
brews, which it manifestly is. On the other 
hand, since all true believers, in the sense of the 
apostle, received the Holy Ghost in his comfort- 
ing and renovating influences, the meaning of 
the phrase becomes obvious, and it lays down 
the proper ground for a general admonition. 
Again: "to taste the good word of God" is still 
an advance in the process of a genuine experi- 
ence. It is tasting the good word — that is, the 
goodness of the word — in a course of experience 
and practice, having personal proof of its good- 
ness and adaptation to man's state in the world ; 
for to argue from the term "taste" as though 
something superficial and transitory only were 
meant, is as absurd as to argue from the threat 
of Christ that those who refused the invitation 
of his servants should not "taste" of his supper, 
that he only excluded them from a superficial 
and transient gustation of his salvation here and 
hereafter ; or that, when the Psalmist calls upon 
us to "taste and see that the Lord is good," he 
excludes a full, and rich, and permanent experi- 
ence of the Divine goodness. Finally, if, by the 
"powers of the world to come," it could be 
proved that the apostle meant the miraculous 
evidences of the truth of the gospel, it would 
not follow that he supposes the persons spoken 
of to be endowed with miraculous powers, but 
that to taste these powers was rather to experi- 
ence the abundant blessings of a religion thus 
confirmed and demonstrated by signs and won- 
ders and divers miracles, according to what he 
urges in chap. ii. 4, of the same epistle. The 
phrase, however, is probably a still further ad- 
vance upon the former, and signifies a personal 
experience of the mighty energy and saving 
power of the gospel. Thus, the interpretation 
of the Calvinists has the absurdity of making 
the apostle speak little things in great words, 
and of using unmeaning tautologies. To "par- 
take of the Holy Ghost" is, according to them, 
to have the gift of miracles; and to taste "the 
powers of the world to come" is to have the gift 
of miracles. To taste the "heavenly gift" is to 
have a superficial relish of gospel doctrine ; and 
"to taste the good word of God" is also to have 
a superficial relish of gospel doctrine ; but how, 
then, are we to tako the term "taste" when the 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



527 



apostle speaks of tasting "the powers of the 
world to come ?" According to these comments, 
this can only mean that they had a superficial 
taste of the power of working miracles ! 

But as these interpretations are below the force 
of the terms, so they are above the capacity of 
the reprobate. "They had, moreover," says 
Scott, "tasted of the good word of God; and 
their connections, impressions, and transient 
affections, made them sensible that it was a good 
word, and that it was for their good to attend to 
it ; and their purposes of doing so had produced 
such hopes and joys as have been described in 
the case of the stony-ground hearers, Matt. xiii. 
20, 21." That Mr. Scott had no right appre- 
hension of the class of persons intended by those 
who received the good seed upon stony ground, 
might easily be proved ; but this is beside our 
present purpose. We find, in the words quoted 
above, (and we refer to Mr. Scott rather than to 
the older divines of the same school, because it 
is often said that Calvinism is now modified and 
improved,) "convictions," "impressions of the 
goodness of the word," and purposes of attending 
to it, ascribed to the non-elect : persons to whose 
salvation this bar is placed, that, according to this 
commentator, and all others who adopt the same 
system, Christ never "intentionally" died for them. 
We ask, then, are these "convictions," "impres- 
sions," and "purposes" from the grace of God 
working in man, or from the natural man wholly 
unassisted by the grace of God ? If the latter, then 
what becomes of the doctrine of the entire corrup- 
tion of human nature, which they profess to hold, 
and that so strenuously? "In me, that is, in 
my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." By the flesh 
the apostle means, doubtless, his natural and 
unassisted state. Yet how many "good things" 
are ascribed, by Mr. Scott, to the very reprobate ! 
"Conviction of the truth of the gospel" was 
doubtless "good," and showed, in that day 
especially, when the prejudices of education had 
not yet come in to the aid of truth, an honest 
spirit of inquiry, and a docile mind. "Impres- 
sions" are still better, as they argue affection to 
truth, which the natural man, as such, hates; 
and these are improved into an acknowledgment 
"of the goodness of the word," though it is a 
reproving word, and a doctrine of holiness, and 
consequently of restraint. To this the merely 
"carnal mind," which St. Paul declares to be 
"enmity against God," is here allowed, not only 
to assent, but also to perceive, with some taste 
and approving relish. "Purposes of attending 
to this good word" are also admitted, which is 
a still further advance, and must by all bo ac- 
knowledged to be "good," as they are the very 
basis of real religious attainment. Yet, if all 



528 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II. 



these — which, in the judgment of every spiritual 
man, would be considered as placing such per- 
sons in a very hopeful state, and would give joy 
to angels, unless they were admitted to the 
secret of reprobation — are to be ascribed to 
nature, then the carnal mind is not absolutely 
and in all cases "enmity against God:" in our 
"flesh some good thing may dwell," and we are 
not by nature "dead in trespasses and sins." 

Let us then suppose, since this position can- 
not be maintained in defiance of the Scriptures, 
that these are the effects of the grace of God, 
and the influences of the Holy Spirit in man: 
to what end is that grace exerted ? Is it that it 
may lead to salvation ? This is denied, and con- 
sistently so ; for can such convictions, and de- 
sires, and purposes, lead to true repentance, 
when Christ gives true repentance to none but 
to the elect ? Nor can they lead to pardon, be- 
cause Christ has not intentionally "died for the 
persons in question." Is the end, then, as Poole, 
or rather his continuator, states it, that the Holy 
Spirit may "try how far a natural man may be 
raised" without ceasing to be so ? If that be 
affirmed, for whose sake is the experiment tried? 
Not, surely, for the sake of the Holy Spirit, 
whose omniscience needs no instruction by expe- 
riment : not for ours ; for this, instead of being 
edifying, only puzzles and confounds us, for who 
can tell how far this experiment may go, and 
how far it is making upon himself ? This, too, 
is so very unworthy an aspersion upon the Holy 
Spirit, that it ought to make sober men very 
much suspect the system which requires it. Is 
it then, finally, as some have affirmed, to make 
the persons more guilty, and to heighten their 
condemnation? How few Calvinists, in the 
present day, are bold enough to affirm this, 
although the advocates of that system have 
formerly done it ; and yet this is the only prac- 
tical end which their system will allow to be 
assigned to such an act as that which, by a 
strange abuse of terms, is called the operation 
of "commonplace" in the hearts of the repro- 
bate. In no other practical end can it issue, but 
to aggravate their guilt and damnation, as the 
old divines of this school perceived and acknow- 
ledged. Either, then, their interpretation of 
these passages affirms a change in the principles 
and feelings of the persons spoken of by the 
apostle in this epistle, much above the capacity 
and power of reprobates, greatly as it falls 
below the real import of the terms used ; or else 
those who advocate the doctrine of reprobation 
are bound to the revolting conclusion, that the 
Holy Spirit thus works in them only to promote 
and deepen their destruction. 

To that class of texts which make it the duty 



of men to believe the gospel, and threaten them 
with punishment for not believing, and which we 
adduced to prove, by necessary implication, that 
Christ died for all men, it has been replied that 
it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, 
whether they are interested in the death of Christ 
or not ; and that they are guilty and deserving 
of punishment for not believing it. By this 
argument, it is conceived that all such passages 
are made consistent with the doctrine of the 
limited extent of the death of Christ. 

On both sides, then, it is granted that it is the 
bounden duty of all men who hear the gospel to 
believe it, and that the violation of this duty 
induces condemnation ; but if Christ died not for 
all such persons, we think it is plain that it can- 
not be their duty to believe the gospel ; and if 
this can be established, then does the scriptural 
principle of the obligation of all men to believe, 
which is acknowledged on both sides, refute all 
limitation of the extent of Christ's atonement. 

To settle this point, it is necessary to determine 
what is meant by believing the gospel. Some 
writers in this controversy seem to take it only 
in the sense of giving credit to the gospel as a 
Divine revelation, and not for accepting and 
trusting in it in order to salvation. But we have, 
in the New Testament, no such division of the 
obligation of believing into two distinct duties — 
one laid upon one class of persons, and the other 
upon another class. So far from this, the faith 
which the gospel requires of all, is trust in the gos- 
pel: "repentance toward God, and faith (trust) 
toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Will any say 
that when all men are commanded "everywhere 
to repent," two kinds of repentance are intended, 
one ineffectual, the other effectual; one to death, 
the other to life ? And if not, will he contend 
that God commands one kind of faith to some, a 
faith which cannot lead to salvation; another 
kind of faith, which does lead to salvation, to 
others ? that he commands a dead faith to the 
reprobate, a living faith to the elect ? For ac- 
cording to the intention of the command, such 
must be the duty ; and if it is the duty of the 
reprobate to believe with the mere faith of assent, 
which, as to them, is dead, then no more was 
ever required of them, in the intention of God, 
than this dead faith. But if men will affirm this, 
they must show us such a restricted and modified 
command from God ; and they must point out, in 
the commands which we have to believe in Christ, 
such a distinction of the obligation of believing 
into a higher and lower duty. There is no such 
modified command, and there is no such distinc- 
tion; but, on the contrary, the faith which is 
required of all is that, and not less than that, 
whereof cometh salvation ; for with remission of - 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY, 



CH. XXV.] 

sins and salvation it is constantly connected. 
"He that believeth shall be saved." " Whoso- 
ever believeth on him shall not perish." " That 
believing ye might have life through his name." 
"To him give all the prophets witness, that 
through his name whosoever believeth in him 
shall receive remission of sins." The faith, then, 
required of all, is true faith : true faith following 
true repentance, the trust of a true penitent in 
the sacrifice of Christ as offered for his sins, that 
he may be forgiven, and received into the family 
of God. 

If this, then, be the faith which is required 
of all who hear the gospel, it is not and cannot 
be the duty of those to believe the gospel, in the 
scriptural sense of believing, for whom Christ 
died not. 1. Because it is impossible, and God 
cannot command a thing impossible, and then 
punish men for not doing it, for this contradicts 
all notions of justice and benevolence. Nor does 
it alter the case whether the impossibility arises 
from a positive necessitating decree, or from 
withholding the aid necessary to enable them to 
comply with the command: such persons as those 
for whom Christ died not, never had, and never 
can have, the power to exercise the saving faith 
which is enjoined upon them; and being impos- 
sible to them, it never could be the subject of 
express command and obligation as to them, 
which nevertheless it is. 2. Because, according 
to the Calvinistic opinion, it is not in the inten- 
tion of God that they should believe and be saved : 
what, therefore, he never intended, he could not 
command ; and yet he has plainly commanded it. 
3. Because what all are bound to believe or trust 
in, is true ; but it is false, according to this 
system, that Christ died for the reprobate, and 
therefore they are not bound to believe or trust 
in him, though they are both commanded to 
believe, and threatened with condemnation if 
they believe not. 

Here, then, is the dilemma into which all must 
fall who deny that the necessary inference from 
the universal obligation to believe in Christ is, as 
we have stated it, that he died for all. If they 
deny the universality of the obligation to believe, 
they deny plain and express Scripture, which 
commands all men to believe ; if they affirm the 
obligation to believe to be universal, they hold 
that men are bound to do that which is impossi- 
ble : that the Lawgiver commands them to do 
what he never intended they should do ; and 
that they are bound to believe and trust in what 
is not true, namely, that Christ died for them, 
and thus to lean upon a broken reed, and to trust 
their salvation to a delusion. 

This is a difficulty which the theologians of 
this .school have felt. The Synod of Dort says, 
34 



529 



(Act. Syn. Dord. part i., cap. 2, art. 5,) "It is 
the promise of the gospel that whosoever believes 
in Christ crucified should not perish, but have 
everlasting life ; which promise, together with 
the injunction of repentance and faith, ought 
promiscuously and without distinction to be de- 
clared and published to all men and people to 
whom God in his good pleasure sends the gos- 
pel." But as some of the later Calvinists found 
themselves perplexed with this statement, they 
began to differ from the synod ; and, allowing 
that Christ died for all whom he commands to 
believe in him, denied that God had commanded 
all men so to believe. [Vide Womack's Arcana 
Dogmatum, page 67.) These divines chose to 
fall on the opposite horn of the dilemma, and 
thus expressly to deny the word of God. Others 
have endeavored to escape the difficulty by mak- 
ing faith in Christ a command of the moral law, 
under which even reprobates, as they take it, 
unquestionably are, and argue that, as by the 
principle of moral law all are bound to believe 
every thing which God hath revealed, so by that 
law all are bound to believe in Christ, and, fail- 
ing of that, are by the moral law justly con- 
demned. It were easy, in answer to this, to 
show that no man in the state of a reprobate, as 
they represent it, is under law of any kind, ex- 
cept a law of necessity to do evil ; but waiving 
this, it were as easy to prove that, because the 
moral law obliges us, "in principle" to do all 
which God commands, the command to the Jews 
to circumcise their children was a command of 
the moral law, as that to believe in Christ is a 
command of the moral law, because, in principle, 
it obliges us to believe what God has revealed. 
But should it be admitted that all are bound, by 
the moral law, to believe all that God reveals, 
yet, according to them, it is not revealed that 
Christ died for all : this we contend for, but they 
contend against: all are not, upon that very 
principle, therefore, bound to believe that Christ 
died for them. Further, those who hold this no- 
tion contend that the moral law commands us to 
do a thing impossible, and contrary to truth ; and 
thus they fall upon the other horn of the dilemma. 

The last class of texts we have adduced in fa- 
vor of general redemption consists of those which 
impute the blame and fault of their non-salva- 
tion to men themselves. If Christ died for all 
men, so as to make their salvation practicable, 
then the fault, according to the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture, lies in themselves : if he died not so for them 
that they may be saved, then the bar to their sal- 
vation lies out of themselves, and in the absenoe 
of any saving provision for them in the gospel, 
which is contrary to the dootrine oi % Scripture. 

Wo enter not now upon the questions of the 



530 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



invincibility of grace, and free and bound "will. 
These will come under consideration in their 
place ; and we now confine ourselves to the ar- 
gument, as it is grounded upon texts of this 
class as given above. The common reply to our 
argument, grounded upon these texts, at least 
among the more moderate kind of Calvinists, is, 
that the fault is indeed in the will of man, and 
that if men willed to come to Christ, that they 
might have life, they would have life ; and thus 
they would have it understood that the argu- 
ment is answered. This, however, we deny: 
they have neither refuted it nor escaped its force ; 
and nothing which is thus apparently conceded 
weakens the force of the conclusion, that if the 
bar to men's salvation be wholly in themselves, 
it lies not in the want of a provision made for 
their salvation in the gospel ; and therefore they 
are so interested in the death of Christ that they 
may be saved by it. 

For let us put the case as to the non-elect, who 
are indeed the persons in question. Either it is 
possible for them to will to come to Christ, and 
to believe in him, or it is not. If the former, 
then they may come to Christ, and believe in 
him, without obtaining life and salvation ; 
for he can dispense these blessings only to 
those for whom he purchased them, which, it is 
contended, he did for the elect only. If the 
latter, then the bar to their salvation is not in 
themselves ; but in that which makes it impos- 
sible for them to will to come to Christ, and to 
believe in him. If it be said that though this is 
impossible to them, yet that still the bar is in 
themselves, because it is in the obstinacy and 
perverseness of their own wills, we ask, whether 
the natural will of the elect is so much better 
than that of the reprobate, that, by virtue of that 
better natural will, they come to Christ and be- 
lieve in him ? This they will deny, and ascribe 
their willing, and coming to Christ, and believing 
in him, to the influence only of Divine grace. 
It will follow then, from this, that the bar to this 
same kind of willing, and believing, on the part 
of the reprobate, lies not in themselves, where 
the Scriptures constantly place it, and so charge 
it upon men as their fault, and the reason of their 
condemnation, but in something without them, 
even in the determination and decree of God not 
to bestow upon them that influence of his grace 
by which this good will, and this power to be- 
lieve in Christ, are wrought in the elect : which 
is precisely what the Synod of Dort has affirmed: 
"This was the most free counsel, gracious will, 
and intention of God the Father, that the lively 
and saving efficacy of the most precious death of 
his Son should manifest itself in all the elect, 
for the bestowing upon them only justifying 



faith ; and bringing them infallibly by it unto 
eternal life." (Cap. 2, art. 8.) This doctrine 
cannot, therefore, be true ; for the Scriptures 
plainly place the bar to the salvation of them 
that are lost, in themselves, and charge the fault 
only on the wilful disobedience and unbelief of 
men ; while this opinion places it in the refusal, 
on the part of God, to bestow that grace upon 
the non-elect by which alone the evil of their 
natural will can be removed. 

Nor is this in the least remedied by arguing 
that as Christ is rejected freely and voluntarily 
by the natural will of man, the guilt is still 
chargeable upon himself. For, not here to anti- 
cipate what may be said on the freedom of the 
will, it is confessed by Calvinists that the will of 
the reprobate is not free to choose to come to 
Christ, and believe in him, since, without grace, 
not even the elect can do this. But if it were 
free to choose Christ, and believe in him, the not 
doing it would not be chargeable upon them as a 
fault. For they do not reject Christ as a Saviour, 
since he is not offered to them as such ; and they 
sin not, by not believing, that is, by not trusting 
in Christ for salvation. For as it is not the will 
of God that they should so believe, they violate 
no command given to them to believe, unless it 
be held that God commands them to do that 
which he wills they should not do ; which is only 
absurdly to say that he wills and he does not 
will the same thing. And seeing that his com- 
mands are the declarations of his will, if the 
command reaches to them, it is a declaration 
that he wills that concerning them which, on this 
system, he does not will ; and this contradiction 
all are bound to maintain who charge the want 
of faith as a fault upon those to whom the power 
of believing is not imparted. 

But the argument from this class of texts is 
not exhausted. They not only place that bar and 
fault which prevents the salvation of men in 
themselves, but they as expressly exclude God 
from all participation in it, contrary to the doc- 
trine before us. "He willeth all men to be 
saved:" he has "no pleasure in the death of 
him that dieth." "He sent his Son not to con- 
demn the world, but that the world through him 
might be saved;" and he invites all, beseeches 
all, obtests all, and makes even his threatenings 
merciful, since he interposes them to prevent 
men from going on still in their trespasses, and 
involving themselves in final ruin. 

Perhaps not many Calvinists in the present 
day are disposed to resort to the ancient subter- 
fuge, of a secret and a revealed will of God ; l and 

i The scholastic terms are voluntas signi, and voluntas 
bene placiti—& signified or revealed will, and a will of plea- 
sure or purpose. 



CTI. 



XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



531 



yet it is difficult to conceive how they can avoid 
admitting this notion, without totally denying 
that which is so clearly written, that God "will- 
eth all men to be saved, and to come to the 
knowledge of the truth ;" and that he commands, 
by his apostle, that prayers should be made "for 
all men." The universality of such declarations 
has already been established ; and no way is left 
for escaping the difficulty in this direction. The 
incompatibility of such declarations with the 
limited extent of Christ's death, is therefore ob- 
vious, unless the term "will" can be modified. 
But if God declares his will in absolute terms, 
while he has yet secret reserves of a contrary 
kind, (to say nothing of the injury done by such 
a notion to the character of the God of truth, 
whose words are without dross of falsehood, "as 
silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven 
times,") this is to will that all men may be saved 
in word, and yet not to will it in fact, which is in 
truth not to will it at all. No subtilty of dis- 
tinction can reconcile this. Nor, according to 
this scheme of doctrine, can God in any way will 
the salvation of the non-elect. It is only under 
one condition that he wills the salvation of any 
man ; namely, through the death of Christ. His 
justice required this atonement for sin ; and he 
could not will man to be saved to the dishonor 
of his justice. If, then, that atonement does not 
extend to all men, he cannot will the salvation 
of all men ; for such of them as are not interested 
in this atonement could not be saved consistently 
with his righteous administration, and he could 
not, therefore, will it. If, then, he wills the 
non-elect to be saved, in any sense, he must will 
this independently of Christ's sacrifice for sins; 
and if he cannot will this for the reason just 
given, he cannot "will all men to be saved," 
which is contrary to the texts quoted : he can- 
not, therefore, invite all to be saved : he cannot 
beseech all by his ministers to be reconciled to 
him ; for these acts could only proceed from his 
willing them to be saved ; and for the same rea- 
son, "all men" ought not to be prayed for by 
those who hold this doctrine, since they assume 
that it is not the will of God that all men should 
be saved. Thus they repeal the apostle's precept, 
as well as the principle upon which it is built, 
by mere human authority ; or else they so inter- 
pret the principle as to impeach the truth of 
God, and so practice the precept as to indulge 
reserves in their own mind, similar to those they 
feign to be in the mind of God. While, there- 
fore, it remains on record that "God willcth all 
Men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge 
of the truth ;" and that he "willcth not that any 
Should perish, but that all should come to re- 
pentance," it must be concluded that Christ died 



for all ; and that the reason of the destruction 
of any part of our race lies not in the want of a 
provision for their salvation ; not in any limita- 
tion of the purchase of Christ, and the adminis- 
tration of his grace, but in their obstinate rejec- 
tion of both. 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 

So far, then, we have advanced in this discus- 
sion as to show, that while no passage of Scrip- 
ture can be adduced, or is even pretended to ex- 
ist, which declares that Christ did not die equally 
for all men, there are numerous passages which 
explicitly, and in terms which cannot, by any 
fair interpretation, be wrested from that mean- 
ing, declare the contrary; and that there are 
others, as numerous, which contain the doctrine 
by necessary implication and inference. To im- 
plication and inference the Calvinist divines also 
resort, and the more so, as they have not a direct 
text in favor of their scheme. It is necessary, 
therefore, in order to obtain a comprehensive 
view of this controversy, compressed into as 
narrow limits as possible, to examine those parts 
of Scripture which, according to their inferential 
interpretations, limit not merely the actual, but 
the intentional efficacy of the death of Christ to 
the elect only. 

The first are those passages which treat of 
persons, said to be elected, foreknown, and pre- 
destinated to the spiritual and celestial blessings 
of the new dispensation ; and the argument from 
the texts in which these distinctions occur is, 
that the persons so called, elected, foreknown, 
and predestinated, are, by that very distinction, 
marked out as the only persons to whom the 
death of Christ intentionally extends. 

We reserve it to another place to state the 
systematic views which the followers of Calvin, 
in their different shades of opinion, take of the 
doctrines of election, etc., lest our more simple 
inquiry into the sense of Scripture should be 
disturbed by extraneous topics ; and we are now, 
therefore, merely called to consider how far this 
argument, which is professedly drawn from 
Scripture and not from metaphysical principles, 
is supported or refuted by an examination of 
those portions of holy writ on which it is usually 
built; and it will not prove a difficult task to 
show that, when fairly interpreted, they con- 
tain nothing which obliges us to narrow our in- 
terpretation of those passages which extend the 
benefit of the death of Christ to all mankind ; 



532 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



and that, in some views, they strongly corrobo- 
rate their most extended meaning, Of a Divine 
election, or choosing and separation from others, 
we have three kinds mentioned in the Scrip- 
tures. 

The first is the election of individuals to per- 
form some particular and special service. Cy- 
rus was "elected" to rebuild the temple: the 
twelve apostles were "chosen," elected, to their 
office by Christ: St. Paul was a "chosen," or 
elected, "vessel," to be the apostle of the Gen- 
tiles. This kind of election to special office and 
service has, however, manifestly no relation to j 
the limitation of eternal salvation, either in re- j 
spect of the persons themselves so chosen, or of 
others. With respect to themselves, it did not 
confer upon them an absolute security. One of 
the twelve elected apostles was Judas, who fell 
and was lost ; and St. Paul confesses his own ! 
personal liability to become "a castaway," after | 
all his zeal and abundant labors. With re- I 
spect to others, the twelve apostles, and St. 
Paul afterward, were "elected" to preach the 
gospel in order to the salvation of all to whom 
they had access. 

The second kind of election which we find in J 
Scripture, is the election of nations, or bodies 
of people, to eminent religious privileges, and in 
order to accomplish, by their superior illumina- j 
tion, the merciful purposes of God, in benefiting ; 
other nations or bodies of people. Thus, the 
descendants of Abraham, the Jews, were chosen , 
to receive special revelations of truth ; and to be 
"the people of God," to be his visible Church, 
and publicly to observe and uphold his worship. 
"The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a 
peculiar people unto himself, above all people 
that are upon the face of the earth." "The 
Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, 
and he chose their seed after them, even you, 
above all people." It was especially on account 
of the application of the terms elect, chosen, 
and peculiar, to the Jewish people, that they 
were so familiarly used by the apostles in their 
epistles addressed to the believing Jews and Gen- 
tiles, then constituting the Church of Christ in 
various places. For Christians were the sub- 
jects, also, of this second kind of election: the 
election of bodies of men to be the visible people 
and Church of God in the world, and to be en- 
dowed with peculiar privileges. Thus they be- 
came, though in a more special and exalted 
sense, the chosen people, the elect of God. We 
say in a more special sense, because, as the en- 
trance into the Jewish Church was by natural 
birth, and the entrance into the Christian Church, 
properly so called, is by faith and a spiritual 
birth, these terms, although many became Chris- 



tians by mere profession, and enjoyed various 
privileges in consequence of their people or 
nation being chosen to receive the gospel, have 
generally respect, in the New Testament, to 
bodies of true believers, or to the whole body of 
true believers as such. They are not, therefore, 
to be interpreted, according to the scheme of Dr. 
Taylor, of Norwich, by the constitution of the 
Jewish, but by the constitution of the Christian 
Church. 

To understand the nature of this "election," 
as applied sometimes to particular bodies of 
Christians, as when St. Peter says, " The Church 
that is at Babylon, elected together with you," 
and sometimes to the whole body of believers 
everywhere ; and also the reason of the frequent 
use of the term election, and of the occurrence 
of allusions to the fact, it is to be remembered 
that a great religious revolution, so to speak, 
had occurred in the age of the apostles ; with 
the full import of which we cannot, without call- 
ing in the aid of a little reflection, be adequately 
impressed. This was no other than the abroga- 
tion of the Church state of the Jews, which 
had continued for so many ages. They had been 
the only visible acknowledged people of God in 
all the nations of the earth ; for whatever pious 
people might have existed in other nations, they 
were not, in the sight of men, and collectively, 
acknowledged as "the people of Jehovah." 
They had no written revelations, no appointed 
ministry, no forms of authorized initiation into 
his Church and covenant, no appointed holy 
days, no sanctioned ritual. All these were pecu- 
liar to the Jews, who were, therefore, an elected 
and peculiar people. This distinguished honor 
they were about to lose. They might have re- 
tained it, had they, by believing the gospel, ad- 
mitted the believing Gentiles of all nations to 
share it with them ; but the great reason of their 
peculiarity and election, as a nation, was termi- 
nated by the coming of the Messiah, who was to 
be "a light to lighten the Gentiles," as well as 
"the glory of his people Israel." Their pride 
and consequent unbelief resented this, which 
will explain their enmity to the believing part of 
the Gentiles, who, when that which St. Paul calls 
"the fellowship of the mystery" was fully ex- 
plained, chiefly by the glorious ministry of that 
apostle himself, were called into this Church rela- 
tion and state of visible acknowledgment as the 
people of God, which the Jews had formerly en- 
joyed, and that with even a higher degree of 
glory, in proportion to the superior spirituality 
of the new dispensation. It was this doctrine 
which excited that strong irritation in the minds 
of the unbelieving Jews, and in some partially 
Christianized ones, to which so many references 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



533 



are made in the New Testament. They were 
"provoked,", were made "jealous," and were 
often roused to the madness of persecuting oppo- 
sition by it. There was, then, a new election 
of a new people of God, to be composed of 
Jews, not by virtue of their natural descent, 
but of their faith in Christ, and of Gentiles of all 
nations, also believing, and put, as believers, on 
equal ground with the believing Jews ; and 
there was also a rejection, a reprobation, if the 
term please any one better ; but not an absolute 
one ; for the election was offered to the Jews 
first, in every place, by offering them the gos- 
pel. Some embraced it, and submitted to be the 
elect people of God, on the new ground of faith, 
instead of the old one of natural descent ; and 
therefore the apostle, Eom. xi. 7, calls the be- 
lieving part of the Jews "the election," in op- 
position to those who opposed this " election of 
grace," and still clung to their former and now 
repealed election as Jews and the descendants 
of Abraham: "but the election hath obtained it, 
and the rest were blinded." The offer had been 
made to the whole nation: all might have joined 
the one body of believing Jews and believing 
Gentiles; but the major part of them refused: 
they would not " come in to the supper :" they 
made "light of it" — light of an election founded 
on faith, and which placed the relation of "the 
people of God" upon spiritual attainments, and 
offered to them only spiritual blessings. They 
were, therefore, deprived of election and church 
relationship of every kind: their temple was 
burned ; their political state abolished ; their 
genealogies confounded; their worship anni- 
hilated ; and all visible acknowledgment of them 
by God as a Church withdrawn, and transferred 
to a Church henceforward to be composed chiefly 
of Gentiles ; and thus, says St. Paul, Rom. x. 
19, were fulfilled the words of Moses, "I will 
provoke you to jealousy by them that are no 
people, and by a foolish [ignorant and idolatrous] 
nation I will anger you." 

It is easy now to see what is the import of 
the "calling" and "election" of the Christian 
Church, as spoken of in the New Testament. It 
was not the calling and the electing of one 
nation in particular to succeed the Jews; but 
it was the calling and the electing of believers 
in all nations, wherever the gospel should be 
preached, to be in reality what the Jews had 
been but typically, and, therefore, in an inferior 
degree, the visible Church of God, "his people," 
under Christ "the Head;" with an authenti- 
cated revelation ; with an appointed ministry, 
never to be lost; with authorized worship ; with 
holy days and festivals ; with instituted forms of 
initiation ; and with special protection and favor. 



This second kind of election being thus ex- 
plained, we may inquire, whether any thing 
arises out of it, either as it respects the Jewish 
Church, or the Christian Church, which obliges 
us in any degree to limit the explicit declara- 
tions of Scripture, as to the universal extent of 
the intentional benefit of the atonement of 
Christ. 

With respect to the ancient election of the 
Jews to be the peculiar people and visible Church 
of God, we may observe : 

1. That it did not argue such a limitation of 
the saving mercy of God to them, as that their 
election secured the salvation of every Jew in- 
dividually. This will be acknowledged by all ; 
for, as the foundation of their Church state was 
their natural relation to Abraham, and our 
Lord, with allusion to this, says to Nicodemus, 
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh," none 
of them could be saved by virtue of being "Jews 
outwardly." 

2. That it did not argue that sufficient, though 
not equal means of salvation were not left to 
the non-elected Gentile nations. These were still 
a "law unto themselves;" and "in every nation," 
says St. Peter, " he that feareth God, and worketh 
righteousness, is accepted with him." 

3. That, so far from the election of the Jewish 
nation arguing that the mercy of God was re- 
strained from the Gentile nations, it is manifest 
that, great reason as the Almighty had to be pro- 
voked by their idolatries, the election of the 
Jews was intended for their benefit also ; that it 
was not only designed to preserve truth, but to 
diffuse it, and to counteract the spread of super- 
stition and idolatry. The miracles wrought from 
age to age among them, exalted "Jehovah" 
above the gods of the heathen : rays of light from 
their sacred books and institutions spread far be- 
yond themselves : the temple of Solomon had its 
court of the Gentiles, and the "stranger" from 
" a far country" had access to it, and enjoyed his 
right of praying to the true God : their captivi- 
ties and dispersions wondrously fulfilled the pur- 
poses of justice as to them, and of mercy as to 
the nations into which they were carried ; and 
their whole history bore an illustrious part in 
that series of the Divine dispensations by which 
the Gentile world was prepared for the coming 
of Christ, and the establishment of his religion. 
This subject has already been adverted to and 
illustrated in the first part of this work. Jeru- 
salem was, in an inferior sense, literally "the 
joy of the whole earth;" and "in the seed of 
Abraham" all the nations of the earth have, in 
all ages, in some degree been blessed. 

With respect to the "election" of the Chris- 
tian Church, we also observe, 



534 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



1. That neither does its election suppose such 
a special grace of God as secures infallibly the 
salvation of every one of its members ; that is, 
in other words, of every elected person. For to 
pass over the case of those who are Christians 
but in name, even true Christians are exhorted 
to give diligence to make their "calling and 
election sure;" and are warned against turning 
"back to perdition." We have also seen, in the 
case of the apostates mentioned in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, that, in point of fact, some of 
those who had thus been actually elected, and 
brought into a state of salvation, had fallen 
away into a condition of extreme hazard, or of 
utter hopelessness. 

2. That the election of Christians, as mem- 
bers of the Church of Christ, concludes nothing 
against the saving mercy of God being still ex- 
ercised as to those who are not of the Church. 
Even the Calvinists cannot deny this ; for many 
who are not now of the body of the visible and 
true Church of Christ, may, according to their 
scheme, be yet called and chosen into that body, 
and thus partake of an election which, while 
they are notoriously wicked and alien from the 
Church of Christ, they do not actually partake 
of, whatever may be the secret purposes of God 
concerning them. 

3. That Christians are thus elected, and made 
the Church of God, not in consequence of others 
being excluded from the compassions and re- 
deeming mercy of Christ, but for their benefit 
and salvation, that they also may be called into 
the fellowship of the gospel. "Ye are the light 
of the world;" "ye are the salt of the earth." 
But in what sense could the Church be "the 
light of the world," were there no capacity in 
the world to receive the same light with which it 
is itself enlightened? or the "salt of the earth," 
if it did not exist for the purifying of the mass 
beyond itself with the same purity? Yet if 
such a capacity exists in "the world," it is from 
the grace of God alone that it derives it, and not 
from nature — a grace which could be imparted to 
the world only in consequence of the death of 
Christ. Thus nothing is to be argued from the 
actual election of the Christian Church, as God's 
visible and acknowledged people on earth, in 
favor of the doctrine that election limits the 
benefits of our Lord's atonement; but, on the 
contrary, this election of the Church has, for 
one of its final causes, the illumination of the 
world. But as Calvinistic commentators have so 
generally confounded this collective election with 
personal election, (a doctrine to which, in its pro- 
per place, we shall presently advert,) and have, in 
consequence, misunderstood and misinterpreted 
the argument of St. Paul, in the ninth, tenth, 



[part II. 

and eleventh chapters of his Epistle to the Bo- 
mans, this celebrated discourse of the apostle 
requires to be briefly examined. 

Let the reader, then, take the epistle in his 
hand, and follow the argument in these chapters, 
with reference to the determining of the two 
main questions at issue, namely, whether per- 
sonal or collective election be the subject of the 
apostle's discourse; and whether the election 
of which he speaks, of whatever kind it may be, 
is, in the sense of the Calvinists, unconditional. 

Let us examine the discourse, first, with refer- 
ence to the question of personal or collective 
election. 

It is acknowledged by all, that, whatever other 
subjects the apostle mayor may not connect with 
it, he treats of the casting off of the Jews, as 
the visible Church of God, and the calling of the 
Gentiles into that relation. For the case of the 
Jews he expresses great "sorrow of heart;" not 
indeed because God had now determined to com- 
pose his visible Church upon a new principle, 
that of faith, and to constitute it no longer upon 
that of natural descent from Abraham — for to 
announce this doctrine St. Paul was chosen to 
be an apostle, and to call, by earnest and exten- 
sive labors, not only the Gentiles, but the Jews 
thankfully to submit to it, by receiving the gos- 
pel — but he had great "sorrow of heart," both 
on account of their having rejected this gracious 
offer, and of the calamities which the approach- 
ing destruction of their nation would bring upon 
them, verses 1, 2. The enumeration which he 
makes, in verses 4 and 5, of the religious honors 
and privileges of the Jewish nation, while it re- 
mained a Church accomplishing the purposes of 
God, shows that he did not intend, by proclaim- 
ing the new foundation on which God would now 
construct his Church, and elect to himself a peo- 
ple out of all nations, to detract at all from the 
divinity or glory of the Mosaic dispensation. 

The objection made, in the minds of the Jew?, 
to this doctrine of the abolition of the Jewish 
visible Church as founded upon descent from 
Abraham, in the line of Isaac, was, as we may 
collect from verse 6, that it was contrary to the 
word and promise of God made to Abraham. 
This objection St. Paul first refutes: "Not as 
though the word of God hath taken none effect," 
literally "has fallen," or "fallen to the ground," 
that is, has not been accomplished ; or as though 
this election of a new Church, composed only of 
believing Jews and Gentiles, was contrary to the 
promises made to Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7, 8. "I 
will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto 
thee, and to thy seed after thee." This ho 
proves, from several events, which the Jews 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



535 



could not deny, as being in the records of their 
own history. By these facts he shows, that the 
exclusion of a part of the seed of Abraham, at 
various times, from being the visible Church of 
God, was not, as the Jews themselves must allow, 
any violation of the covenant with Abraham. He 
first instances the case of the descendants of Ja- 
cob himself, although he was the son of Isaac. 
"All are not Israel, (God's visible Church and ac- 
knowledged people,) who are of Israel," or Ja- 
cob ; for a great part of the ten tribes who had 
been carried into captivity before the Babylonian 
invasion of Judah, had never returned, had never 
been again collected into a people, and had, for 
ages, been cast out of their ancient Church state 
and relation, though, by natural descent, they 
were "of Israel," that is, descendants of Jacob. 
From Jacob he ascends to Abraham, verse 7 : 
"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, 
are they all children," that is, Abraham's "seed" 
in the sense of the promise ; "but in Isaac," not 
in Ishmael, "shall thy seed be called;" "that 
is, they which are the children of the flesh," Ish- 
mael by Hagar, and his descendants, "these 
are not the children of God; but the children 
of the promise," Isaac, born of Sarah, and his 
descendants, "are counted for the seed," mean- 
ing, obviously, for that seed to whom the promise 
refers. He gives a third instance of this elec- 
tion and exclusion taken from the children of 
Isaac, ver. 10-13, "And not only this ; but when 
Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our 
father Isaac, (for the children being not yet born, 
neither having done any good or evil, that the 
purpose of God according to election," the elec- 
tion of one in preference to the other, "might 
stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,") it 
was said unto her, The elder shall serve the 
younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, 
but Esau have I hated." On this last passage, 
so often perverted to serve the system of Calvin- 
ian election and reprobation, a few remarks more 
at large may be allowed. 

1. The argument of the apostle, of which this 
instance is in continuance, requires us to under- 
stand that he is still speaking of "the seed" in- 
tended in the promise, which did not comprise 
all the descendants either of Abraham, or Isaac, 
or Jacob, for he brings instances of exclusion 
from each ; but such as God elected to be his 
visible Church : he is not therefore speaking of 
the personal election or rejection of Isaac, or 
Ishmael, or Jacob, or Esau; but of their descend- 
ants in certain lines, as elected to be the ac- 
knowledged Church of God. 

2. This is proved, also, from those passages in 
the history of Moses which furnish the facts on 
which the apostle reasons, and which he quotes 



briefly as being well known to the Jews. "As it 
is written, The elder shall serve the younger." 
Now this is written, Gen. xxv. 23, "Two nations 
are in thy womb, and two manner of people 
shall be separated from thy bowels ; and the one 
people shall be stronger than the other people ; 
and the elder," the descendants of the elder, 
"shall serve the younger." So far, indeed, was 
this prophecy from being intended of Esau per- 
sonally, that he himself did never serve his 
brother Jacob, although he wantonly surren- 
dered to him his birthright. Another passage 
is found in the Prophet Malachi i. 2, 3, and ex- 
presses God's dealings, not with the individuals 
Jacob and Esau, but with their descendants 5> 
who, according to frequent usage in Scripture, 
are called by the names of their first ancestors. 
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother; yet I loved 
Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his moun- 
tains and his heritage waste for the dragons 
of the wilderness !" judgments which fell not 
upon Esau personally, but upon the Edomites, 
his descendants. 

3. If the apostle, in this instance of Jacob 
and Esau, speaks of the rejection or reprobation 
of individuals, he says nothing at all to his pur- 
pose, because he is discoursing of the rejection 
of the Jews, as a nation, from being any longer 
the visible and acknowledged Church of God in 
the world ; so that instances of individual repro- 
bation would have been impertinent to his purpose. 
But to proceed with the apostle's discourse. 

Having shown, by these instances, that God 
had limited the covenant to a part of the descend- 
ants of Abraham, at different periods, he puts 
it to the objecting Jews to say whether, on that 
account, there was a failure of his covenant with 
Abraham: "What shall we say then? Is there un- 
righteousness with God? God forbid." The word 
unrighteousness is usually taken in the sense of 
injustice, but is sometimes used in the sense of 
falsehood and unfaithfulness, by the writers of 
the New Testament, as well as by the LXX.; and 
in this sense it well agrees with the apostle's 
reasoning: "Is there then unfaithfulness with 
God," because he has so frequently limited the 
promise made to the seed of Abraham, to parti- 
cular branches of that seed? The apostle denies 
that in this there was any unfaithfulness, or, in 
the sense of injustice, which perhaps is to be 
preferred, any "■unrighteousness in God ;" and the 
Jews themselves are bound to agree with him. 
since, as the apostle adds, it was a general prin- 
ciple laid down in their own law, by the Law- 
giver himself when speaking to Moses, and by 
which, therefore, all such promises of Bpooial 
favor must be interpreted, — "1 will have mercy 
on whom I will have mercy, and 1 will have oom- 



536 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



passion on whom I will have compassion." The 
connection of these words as they stand in Exo- 
dus xxxiii. 19, shows that the mercy and grace 
here spoken of, refer not, as Beza would have it, 
to that mercy exercised to individuals which sup- 
poses misery, and consists in the exercise of par- 
don, but to the granting of special favors and 
privileges. For the words are spoken to Moses, 
in answer to his prayer, "I beseech thee, show 
me thy glory." To him God had before said, 
verse 17, "Thou hast found grace in my sight, 
and I know thee by name." He was not, there- 
fore, in the case of a guilty, miserable man. 
Nor do the words refer to the forgiveness of the 
people at his intercession. This had been done : 
the transaction, as to them, had been finished, 
as the history shows ; and then Moses, encour- 
aged by the success of his intercessions for them, 
makes a bold but wholly personal request for 
himself. "And he said, I beseech thee, show 
me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my 
goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the 
name of the Lord before thee ; and will be gra- 
cious," in showing these great condescensions, 
"to whom I will be gracious, and will show 
mercy on whom I will show mercy." God has a 
right to select whom he pleases to enjoy special 
privileges; in this there is no "unrighteous- 
ness," and, therefore, in limiting those favors to 
such branches of Abraham's seed as he chose 
to elect, neither his justice nor his truth was 
impeached. This is obvious, when the words 
are interpreted of the election of collective 
bodies of men, and of the individuals which 
compose them, to peculiar favors and religious 
privileges; while yet all others have still the 
means of salvation. The onus lies only upon 
them who interpret this part of Scripture of 
personal, unconditional election and reprobation, 
to show how it can be a "righteous" proceeding 
to punish men for not availing themselves of 
means of salvation which are never afforded 
them.. This is manifestly "unrighteous;" but 
in the election and rejection spoken of by the 
apostle, he expressly denies that there is "un- 
righteousness with God :" he does this in a sol- 
emn manner, "God forbid;" and, therefore, the 
kind of election and rejection of which he speaks 
is not the unconditional election and reprobation 
of individuals to or from eternal salvation. 

The conclusion of the apostle's answer to the 
objection of the Jews, that the casting off a part 
of the Jewish nation, even all who did not be- 
lieve in Christ, was contrary to the promises 
made to Abraham, is : "So then it is not of him 
that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God 
that showeth mercy." He grants special favors, 
as the term "showing mercy," in the preceding 



[PART II. 

verse, has been already proved to mean ; and, 
in granting these special favors, he often acts 
contrary to the designs and efforts of men, and 
frustrates both. The allusion contained in these 
words to the case of Isaac and Esau is, there- 
fore, highly beautiful and appropriate: "It is 
not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth." 
Isaac willed that Esau, the first-born, should 
have the blessing ; and Esau ran for the venison 
as the means of obtaining it; but still Jacob 
obtained it. The blessing was not, however, a 
personal one, but referred to the people of whom 
Jacob was to be the progenitor, as the history 
given by Moses will show. Thus, this case also 
affords no example of personal election. 

The apostle having proved that there was 
neither unfaithfulness nor unrighteousness in 
God in selecting, from his own good pleasure — 
from his sovereignty, if the term please better — 
the persons to be endowed with special religious 
honors and privileges, proceeds to show, with 
reference not only to the exclusion of the Jews, 
as a nation, from the visible Church, but also to 
the terrible judgments which our Lord himself 
had predicted, and which were about to come 
upon them, that he exercises also the prerogative 
of making some notorious sinners, and especially 
when they set themselves to oppose his purposes, 
the eminent and unequivocal objects of his dis- 
pleasure. Here again he uses for illustration an 
example taken from the Jewish Scriptures. But 
let the example be marked. Had it been his 
intention to show that the personal election of 
Isaac and Jacob necessarily implied the personal 
reprobation of Ishmael and Esau, and that their 
j not receiving special privileges necessarily cut 
j them off from salvation, so that being left to 
themselves they became objects of wrath, then 
would he have selected them as his illustrative 
examples, for this would have been required by 
j his argument. But he selects Pharaoh — not a 
| descendant of Abraham : a person not involved 
in the cases of non-election which had taken 
\ place in Abraham's family, but a notoriously 
i wicked prince, and one who resolved to oppose 
| himself to the designs of God in the deliverance 
, of Israel from bondage. His doctrine, then, 
manifestly is, that when these two characters 
j meet in individuals, or in nations — notorious 
j vice and flagrant opposition to God's plans and 
purposes — he often makes them the objects of 
j his special displeasure, giving them up to the 
hardness of their hearts, and postponing their 
destruction to make it more impressively mani- 
fest to the world. In every respect, Pharaoh 
was a most appropriate example to illustrate the 
case of the body of the unbelieving Jews, who, 
when the apostle wrote, were under the sentence 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



537 



of a terrible excision. Pharaoh had several 
times hardened his own heart — now God hardens 
it, that is, in Scripture language, withdraws his 
all-gracious interposition, and gives him up. So 
the Jews had hardened their hearts against re- 
peated calls of Christ and his apostles — now 
God was about to give them up, as a nation, to 
destruction. Pharaoh was not suddenly de- 
stroyed, but was spared: "For this same pur- 
pose have I raised thee up" from the effect of so 
many plagues ; that is, I have not destroyed 
thee outright. The LXX. translate, " Thou hast 
been preserved ;" for the Hebrew word rendered 
by us "raised up," never signifies to bring a 
person or thing into being, but to preserve, sup- 
port, establish, or make to stand. Thus, also, 
the Jews had not been instantly cut off; but had 
been "endured with much long-suffering," to 
give them an opportunity of repentance, of which 
many availed themselves ; and the remainder 
were still endured, though they were filling up 
the measure of their iniquities, and would, in 
the end, but by their own fault, display more 
eminently the justice and severity of God. Pha- 
raoh's crowning offence was his rebellious oppo- 
sition to the designs of God in taking Israel out 
of Egypt, and establishing them in Canaan as an 
independent nation, and as the Church of God : 
the Jews filled up the measure of their iniquities 
by endeavoring to withstand the purpose of God 
as to the Gentiles — his purpose to elect a Church, 
composed of both Jews and Gentiles, only on the 
ground of faith ; and this made the cases paral- 
lel. Therefore, says the apostle, it follows, from 
all these examples, that "he hath mercy on 
whom he will have mercy," gives special reli- 
gious advantages to those whom he wills to elect 
for this purpose ; "and whom he will," whom he 
chooses to select as examples from among noto- 
rious sinners who rebelliously oppose his designs, 
"he hardeneth," or gives up to a hardness which 
they themselves have cherished. In verse 19, 
the Jew is again introduced as an objector. 
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet 
find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" 
and to this St. Paul answers: "Nay, but, 
man! who art thou that repliest against God? 
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 
it, Why hast thou made me thus?" verse 20. 
The usual way in which the objection is ex- 
plained, by non-Calvinistic commentators, is: If 
the continuance of the Jews in a state of dis- 
obedience was the consequence of the detoi*mi- 
nation of God to leave them to themselves, why 
should God still find fault? If they had become 
obdurate by the judicial withholding of his 
grace, why should the Jews still be blamed, 
Bince his will had not been resisted, but accom- 



plished? If this be the sense of the objection, 

then the import of the apostle's answer will be 

' that it is both perverse and wicked for a nation, 

' justly given up to obduracy, "to reply against 

' God," or "debate" the case with him ; and that 

it ought, silently at least, to submit to its penal 

dereliction, recollecting that God has an absolute 

power over nations, not only to raise them to 

peculiar honors and privileges, and to take them 

away, as "the potter hath power over the clay 

to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto 
i ' 

i dishonor," but to leave them to fill up the mea- 

j sure of their sins, that his judgments may be 
the more conspicuous. That this is a better and 
more consistent sense than that forced upon 
these words by Calvinistic commentators, may 
be freely admitted : but it is not wholly satis- 
factory. 

For, 1. One sees not what can be expected 
from a people judicially given up, but a "reply- 
ing against God ;" or what end is to be answered 
by taking any pains to teach a people, in this 
hopeless case, not "to reply against God," but 
to suffer his judgments in silence. 

2. As little discoverable, if this be the mean- 
ing, is the appropriateness of the apostle's allu- 
sion to the parable of the potter, in Jeremiah, 
chap, xviii. There Almighty God declares his 
absolute power over nations, to give them what 
form and condition he pleases ; but still, under 
these rules, that he repents of the evil which he 
threatens against wicked nations, when they 
repent, and withdraws his blessings from them 
when they are abused. But this illustration is 
surely not appropriate to the case of a nation 
given up to final obduracy, because the parable 
of the potter supposes the time of trial, as to 
such nations, not yet passed. "0 house of 
Israel! cannot I do with you as this potter? 
saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the 
potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, house 
of Israel! At what instant I shall speak con- 
cerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to 
pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it : 
if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, 
turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil 
that I thought to do unto them. And at what 
instant I shall speak concerning a nation and 
concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it : 
if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my 
voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith 
I said I would benefit them." There is here no 
allusion to nations being kept in a state of judi- 
cial dereliction and obduracy, in order to make 
their punishment more conspicuous. 

3. When the apostle speaks of the potter 
making, of the "same In inn. one vessel t<> honor 
and another to dishonor," the last term does not 



538 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



fully apply to the state of a people devoted to 
inevitable destruction. It is true that, in a fol- 
lowing verse, he speaks of "vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction;" but that is in another 
view of the case of the Jews, as we shall imme- 
diately show — nor does he affirm that they were 
"fitted to destruction" by God. There he speaks 
of what men fit themselves for, or that fitness 
for the infliction of the Divine wrath upon them 
which they themselves, by their perverseness, 
create. Here he speaks of an act of God, using 
the figure of a potter forming some vessels "to 
honor, others to dishonor." But dishonor is not 
destruction. No potter makes vessels to destroy 
them ; and we may be certain, that when Jere- 
miah went down to the potter's house to see 
him work the clay upon "the wheel," the potter 
was not employed in forming vessels to destroy 
them. On the contrary, says the prophet, when 
the lump of clay was "marred in his hand," so 
that, not for want of skill in himself, but of 
proper quality in the clay, it took not the form 
he designed, of the same lump he made "ano- 
ther vessel, as seemed good to the potter to 
make it" — a meaner vessel, as the inferior quality 
or temper of the clay admitted, instead of that 
finer and more ornamental form which it would 
not take. The application of this was natural 
and easy to the house of Israel. It had become 
a lump of marred day in the hands of the potter, 
which answered not to his design, and yielded 
not to his will. This illustrated the case of the 
Jews previous to the captivity of Babylon : they 
were marred in his hand : they were not answer- 
ing the design for which he made them a people; 
but then the potter gave the stubborn clay ano- 
ther, though a baser form, and did not cast it 
away from him : he put the Jews into the con- 
dition of slaves and captives in a strange land, 
and reduced them from their honorable rank 
among the nations. This might have been 
averted by their repentance ; but when the clay 
became utterly "marred," it was turned into this 
inferior and less honorable form and state. But 
all this was not excision — not destruction. The 
proceeding was corrective, as well as punitive : 
it brought them to repentance in Babylon, and 
God "repented him of the evil." The potter 
took even that vessel which had been made unto 
dishonor for seventy years, and made of it again 
"a vessel unto honor," by restoring the polity 
and Church relation of the Jews. 

4. The interpretation to which these objections 
are made also supposes that the body of the 
Jewish nation had arrived at a state of derelic- 
tion already. But this epistle was written seve- 
ral years before the destruction of Jerusalem ; 
and although the threatening had gone forth, as 



to the dereliction and "hardening" of the per- 
severingly impenitent, it is plain, from the labors 
of the apostle himself to convert the Jews every- 
where, and from his "prayers that Israel might 
be saved," (chap. x. 1,) that he did not consider 

j them, as yet at least, in this condition ; though 

J most of them, and especially those in Judea, 

1 were hastening to it. 

Let us, then, take a view of this part of the 
apostle's discourse in some respects different. 
The objecting Jew, upon the apostle having 
stated that God shows mercy or special favor to 
whom he will, and selects out of the mass of 
sinners whom he pleases for marked and emi- 
nent punishment, says, "Why doth he yet find 
fault?" "Why does he, by you, his messenger, 
allowing you your apostolic commission, con- 
tinue to reprove and blame the Jews ? for who 
hath resisted his will ?" According to your own 
doctrine, he chooses the Gentiles and rejects us : 
his will is accomplished, not resisted: "Why, 
then, doth he still find fault ?" We may grant 
that the objection of the Jews goes upon the 
Calvinistic view of sovereignty and predestina- 
tion, and the shutting out of all conditions ; but 
then it is to be remembered that it is the objec- 
tion of a perverse and unbelieving Jew ; and that 
it is refuted, not conceded, by the apostle ; for 
he proceeds wholly to cut off all ground and pre- 
tence of "replying against God," by his refer- 
ence to the parable of the potter in Jeremiah. 
This reference, according to the view we have 
already given of that parable, shows, 1. That 
"the vessel" was not made "unto dishonor," 
until the clay of which it was formed had been 
" marred in the hand of the potter ;" that is, not 
until trial being made, it did not conform to his 
design — did not work according to the pattern 
in his mind. This is immediately explained by 
the prophet: the nation did not "repent" and 
" turn from its wickedness," and therefore God 
dealt with them "as seemed good" to him. 

' Thus, in the time of the apostle, the Jewish na- 
tion was the clay marred in the hands of God. 
From its stubbornness and want of temper, it 
had not conformed to his design of bringing it to 
the honorable form of a Christian Church, in 
association with the Gentiles. It was therefore 
made "a vessel unto dishonor," unchurched, and 
disowned of God, as its forefathers had been in 
Babylon. This was the dishonored, degraded 
condition of all the unbelieving Jews in the apos- 

i tie's day, although the destruction of their city, 
and temple, and polity, had not taken place. 
They were rejected from being the visible Church 
of God from the rending of the veil of the temple, 
or, at least, from the day of pentecost, when God 

! visibly took possession of his new spiritual 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



539 



Church by the descent of the Holy Ghost. But 
all this was their own "fault;" and therefore, 
notwithstanding the objection of the perverse 
Jew, "fault" might be found with them who re- 
fused the glory of a higher Church estate than 
that which their circumcision formerly gave, 
and which had been so long and so affectionately 
offered to them — with men who not only would 
not enter " the kingdom of God" themselves, but 
attempted to hinder even the Gentiles from en- 
tering in, as far as lay in their power. 

2. The reference to the parable of the potter 
served to silence their "replying against God" 
also ; because, in the interpret? tion which Jere- 
miah gives of that parable, he represents even 
the vessel formed unto dishonor, out of the mass 
which was "marred in the hand of the potter," 
as still within the reach of the Divine favor upon 
repentance ; and so the conduct of God to the 
Jews, instead of proceeding, as the Jew in his 
objection supposes, upon rigid predestinarian 
and unconditional grounds, left their state still 
in their own hands : they had no need to remain 
vessels of dishonor, since the Christian Church 
was still open to them with its higher than Jew- 
ish honors. The word of the Lord, by his pro- 
phet, immediately on his having visited the pot- 
ter's house, declares that if a nation "repent," 
he will repent of the evil designed against or 
brought upon it. The Jews in Babylon, although 
they were there in the form of dishonored vessels, 
did repent ; and of that dishonored mass, " ves- 
sels of honor" were again made at their restora- 
tion to their own land. Instead of replying 
against God, they bowed to his judgments in 
silence ; and, as we read in the prayer of Daniel, 
confessed them just. Every Jew had this option 
when the apostle wrote, and has it now ; and 
therefore St. Paul does not here call upon the 
Jews, as persons hardened and derelict of God, 
to be silent, and own the justice of God, but as 
persons whose silent submission would be the 
first step to their recovery. Nor will they al- 
ways, even as a people, remain vessels of dis- 
honor, but be formed again on the potter's wheel 
as vessels of honor and glory, of which the re- 
turn from Babylon was probably a type. The 
object of the apostle was, therefore, to silence a 
rebellious and perverse replying against God, by 
producing a conviction both of his sovereign 
right to dispense his favors as he pleases, and of 
his justice in inflicting punishments upon those 
who set themselves against his designs ; and 
thus to bring the Jews to repentance. 

3. What follows verso 22 serves further, rind 
by another view, to silence the objecting Jew. 
It was true that the body of the Jewish people in 
Judea, and their polity, would be destroyed : our 



Lord had predicted it; and the apostles fre- 
quently, but tenderly, advert to it. This pre- 
diction did not, however, prove that the Jews 
were, at the time the apostle wrote, generally in 
a state of entire and hopeless dereliction, or the 
apostle would not so earnestly have sought and 
so fervently have prayed for their salvation. 
Nor did that event itself prove that those who 
still remained, and to this day remain, were given 
up entirely by God ; for if so, why should the 
Church have been, in all ages, taught to look for 
their restoration— no time being fixed, and no 
signs established, to enable us to conclude that 
the dereliction had been taken off ? The tem- 
poral punishment of the Jews of Judea had no 
connection with the question of their solvability 
as a people. To this sad national event, how- 
ever, the apostle adverts in the next verses : 
"What," or beside, "if God, willing to show his 
wrath, and to make his power known, endured 
with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction ; and that he might make 
known the riches of his glory on the vessels of 
mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory, 
even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews 
only, but also of the Gentiles. As he saith also 
in Osee, I will call them my people, which were 
not my people," etc. Verses 22-25. The apostle 
does not state his conclusion, but leaves it to be 
understood. He intended it manifestly further 
to silence the perverse objections of the Jews ; 
and he gives it as a proof not of sovereignty 
alone, but of sovereignty and justice — sovereign 
mercy to the Gentiles, but justice to the Jews — 
as though he had said, this procedure is also 
righteous, and leaves no room to reply against 
God. 

The metaphor of "vessels" is still carried on; 
but by "vessels of dishonor, formed by the pot- 
ter," and "vessels of wrath, fitted for destruc- 
tion," he does not mean vessels in the same con- 
dition, but in different conditions. This is plain 
from the difference of expression adopted : "ves- 
sels unto dishonor," and "vessels of wrath;" but 
as the apostle's reasoning is evidently influenced 
by the reference he has made to the parables of 
the potter in the eighteenth and nineteenth chap- 
ters of Jeremiah, we must again refer to that 
prophecy for illustration. In all the examples 
which in this discourse St. Paul takes out of the 
Old Testament, it has been justly observed by 
critics that he quotes briefly, and only so as to 
give to the Jews, who were well acquainted with 
their Scriptures, the key to the whole context in 
whioh the passages stand to whioh he directs 

their attention. So in the verses before us. by 

referring to the potter forming the vessels on the 
wheel, he directs them to the whole section of 



540 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



prophecy of which that is the introduction. By 
examining this it will be found that the prophet, 
in delivering his message, makes use of the work 
of the potter for illustration in two states, and 
for two purposes. The first we have explained : 
the giving to the mass, marred in the hands of 
the potter, another form ; which expressed that 
dishonored and humbled state in which the Jews, 
both for punishment and correction, were placed 
under captivity in Babylon. But connected with 
the humbling of this proud people, by rejecting 
them for seventy years, as God's visible Church, 
was also the terrible destruction of Jerusalem 
and the temple itself. With reference to this, 
the prophet, in the nineteenth chapter, which is 
a continuation of the eighteenth, receives this 
command: "Thus saith the Lord, Go and get a 
potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of 
the people, and the ancients of the priests ; and 
go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, 
which is by the entry of the east gate, and pro- 
claim there the words that I shall tell thee, and 
say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, kings of 
Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem : Thus saith 
the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold I 
will bring evil upon this place, the which whoso- 
ever heareth, his ears shall tingle." And then 
having delivered his awful message in various 
forms of malediction, he is thus commanded, in 
verse 10: "Then shalt thou break the bottle in 
the sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt 
say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts : 
even so will I break this people and this city, as 
one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made 
whole again." As this stands in the same sec- 
tion of prophecy as the parable of the forming 
of vessels out of clay by the potter, can it be 
doubted to what the apostle refers when he 
speaks not only of "vessels made unto dishonor," 
but also of "vessels of wrath fitted for destruc- 
tion?" The potter's earthen bottle, broken by 
Jeremiah, was " a vessel of wrath fitted for de- 
struction," though not in the intention of the 
potter who formed it- ; and the breaking or de- 
struction of it represented, as the prophet him- 
self says, the destruction of the city, temple, and 
polity of the Jews, by the invasion of the forces 
of the king of Babylon. The coming destruction 
of the temple, city, and polity of the Jews by 
the Romans was thereby fitly represented by the 
same figure in words, that is, the destruction of 
an earthen vessel by violent fracture, as the 
former calamity had been represented by it in 
action. Further, the circumstances of these two 
great national punishments signally answer to 
each other. In the former, the Jews ceased to 
be the visible Church of God for seventy years : 
in the latter, they have been also unchurched for 



[part II. 

many ages. Their temporary rejection as the 
visible Church of God when they were taken 
into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar was marked, 
also, by circumstances of severe and terrible ven- 
geance, by invasion, and the destruction of their 
political state. Their longer rejection, as God's 
Church, was also accompanied by judgments of 
the same kind, and by their more terrible ex- 
cision and dispersion as a body politic. As tha 
prophet refers to both circumstances, so, in his 
usual manner of teaching by action, he illus- 
trates both by symbols. The first, by the work 
of the potter on the wheels : the second, by tak- 
ing " an earthen bottle, a vessel out of the honse 
of the potter, and destroying it before the eyes 
of the ancients of the people and the ancients of 
the priests." The apostle, in like manner, refers 
to both events, and makes use of the same sym- 
bols verbally. The "dishonored" state of the 
Jews, as no longer acknowledged by God as his 
people, since they would not enter the new 
Church, the New Jerusalem, by faith, is shown 
by the vessel formed by the potter unto "dis- 
honor:" the collateral calamities brought upon 
their city, temple, and nation, arising out of 
their enormous sins, are shown by allusion to the 
prophet's breaking another vessel, an earthen 
bottle. This temporal destruction of the Jews 
by the Roman invasion was also figurative of the 
future and final punishment of all persevering 
unbelievers. As to the Jews of that day living 
in Judea, the nation of the Jews, the punishment 
figured by the broken vessel was final, for they 
were destroyed by the sword, and wasted by 
slavery ; and as to all who persevered in un- 
belief, the future punishment in eternity would 
be final and hopeless, "as one breaketh a pot- 
ter's vessel that cannot be made whole again :" 
a sufficient proof that St. Paul is not speaking 
of the vessel in its state of clay, on the potter's 
wheel, which might be made whole again ; and, 
therefore, the punishment figured by that was 
not final, but corrective ; for the Jews, though 
made vessels unto dishonor in Babylon, were 
again made vessels of honor on their restoration ; 
and the Jews now, though for a much longer 
period existing as "vessels of dishonor," shall 
be finally restored, brought into the Church of 
Christ, acknowledged to be his people, as the 
believing Gentiles are, and thus, united with 
them, again be made "vessels unto honor." 

The application of the apostle's words, in the 
verses just commented upon, as intended to 
silence the "replying" of the Jews against God, 
is now obvious. They could urge no charge 
upon God for making them vessels of dishonor 
by taking away their Church state, for that was 
their own fault: they were "marred in his 



en. xxvi.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



541 



hands," and they yielded not to his design. 
But their case was no more hopeless than that 
of the Jews in Babylon: they might still be 
again made vessels of honor. And, then, as to 
the case of the "vessels of wrath fitted for de- 
struction," those stubborn Jews who were bring- 
ing upon themselves the Roman invasion, with 
the destruction of their city and nation ; and all 
perverse, unbelieving Jews, who continued, in 
other parts of the world, to reject the gospel; 
although their approaching punishment would 
be final and remediless, yet was there no ground 
for them "to reply against God" on that account, 
as though this dispensation of wrath were the 
result of unconditional predestination and rigid 
sovereignty. On the contrary, it was an act of 
pure and unquestionable justice, which the apos- 
tle proves by its being brought upon themselves 
by their own sins, and by the circumstance that 
it did not take place until after God had "en- 
dured them with much long-suffering." 

1. The destruction was brought upon them- 
selves by their own sins. This is manifest from 
all the instances in the New Testament, in which 
their sins are charged upon them as the cause 
of their calamities, and which need not be 
quoted ; and also from the expression in the text 
before us — vessels "fitted to destruction." The 
word might as well have been rendered "adapted 
to destruction," which fitness or congruity for 
punishment can be produced only by sin ; and 
this sin must have been their own choice and 
fault, unless we should blasphemously make God 
the author of sin, which but a few Calvinistic 
divines have been bold enough to affirm. Nor 
are we to overlook the change of speech which 
the apostle uses (Wolfius in loc.) when speaking 
of "the vessels of mercy." Their "preparation 
unto glory" is ascribed expressly to God — 
"which he had afore prepared unto glory;" but 
of the vessels of wrath the apostle simply says, 
passively, "fitted to destruction," leaving the 
agent to be inferred from the nature of the 
thing, and from the testimony of Scripture, 
which uniformly ascribes the sins of men to 
themselves, and their punishment to their sins. 

2. The justice of God's proceeding as to the 
incorrigible Jews, is still more strongly marked 
by the declaration that these vessels of wrath, 
fitted or adapted to destruction, were "endured 
with much long -suffering." To say that their 
punishment was delayed to render it more con- 
spicuous, after they had been left or given up 
by God, would be no impeachment of God's jus- 
tice ; but it is much more consonant to the tenor 
of Scripture to consider the "long-suffering" 
hero mentioned as exercised previously to their 
being given up to the hardness of their hearts, 



like Pharaoh, and even after they were, in a 
rigid construction of just severity, "fitted for 
destruction:" the punishment being delayed to 
afford them still further opportunities for re- 
pentance. The barren tree, in our Lord's para- 
ble, was the emblem of the Jewish nation ; and 
no one can deny that, after the Lord had come 
for many years "seeking fruit and finding none," 
this fruitless tree was "fitted" to be cut down; 
and yet it was "endured with much long-suffer- 
ing." This view is, also, further supported by 
the import of the word "long-suffering," and 
its use in the New Testament. Long-suffering 
is a mode of mercy, and the reason of its exer- 
cise is only to be found in a merciful intention. 
Hence "goodness and forbearance, and long- 
suffering," are united by the apostle, in another 
part of this epistle, when speaking of these very 
Jews, in a passage which may be considered as 
strictly parallel with that before us. "Or de- 
spisest thou the riches of his goodness and for- 
bearance, and long-suffering : not knowing that 
the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart 
treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the 
day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous 
judgment of God;" which "wrath" the long- 
suffering of God was exercised to prevent, by 
leading them "to repentance." Rom. ii. 4, 5. 
So also St. Peter teaches us that the end of 
God's long-suffering to men is a merciful one : 
he is "long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that 
any should perish, but that all should come to 
repentance" The passage in question, therefore, 
cannot be understood of persons derelict and 
forsaken of God, as though the long-suffering 
of God, in enduring them, were a part of the 
process of "showing his wrath and making his 
power known." Doddridge, a moderate Calvin- 
ist, paraphrases it: "What if God, resolving" 
at last "to manifest his wrath and make his 
power known, hath," in the meantime, "endured 
with much long-suffering" those who shall finally 
appear to be "the vessels of wrath fitted to de- 
struction ?" to which there is no objection, pro- 
vided it be allowed that in this "meantime'" they 
might have repented and obtained mercy. 

Thus the proceedings of God as to the Jews 
shut out all "reply" and "debate" with God. 
Nothing was unjust in his conduct to the impeni- 
tent among them, for they were "vessels of 
wrath fitted for destruction — wicked men. justly 
liable to it; and yet, before God prooeeded to 
his work of judgment, he endured them with 
forbearance, and gave them many opportunities 
of coming into his Church, on the new election 
of believers both of Jews and Gentiles. And as 
to this election, the whole was a question, not 



542 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



of justice, but of grace ; and God had the un- 
questionable right of forming a new believing 
people, ' ' not of the Jews only, but also of the Gen- 
tiles," and of filling them, as "vessels of honor," 
with those riches, that fulness of glory, as his 
now acknowledged Church, for which he had 
"afore prepared them" by faith, the only ground 
of their admission into his covenant. The re- 
mainder of the chapter, on which we have com- 
mented, contains citations from the prophecies 
with respect to the salvation of the "remnant" 
of the believing Jews, and the calling of the 
Gentiles. The tenth and eleventh chapters, 
which continue the discourse, need no particular 
examination ; but will be found to contain no- 
thing but what most obviously refers to the col- 
lective rejection of the Jewish nation, and the 
collective election of the "remnant" of believing 
Jews, along with all believing Gentiles, into the 
visible Church of God. 

TTe have now considered this discourse of the 
apostle Paul with reference to the question of 
personal or collective election, and find that it 
can be interpreted only of the latter. Let us 
consider it, secondly, with reference to the ques- 
tion of unconditional election — a doctrine which 
we shall certainly find in it, but in a sense very 
different from that in which it is held by Cal- 
vinists. 

By unconditional election divines of this class 
understand an election of persons to eternal life 
without respect to their faith or obedience — 
these qualities in them being supposed necessa- 
rily to follow, as consequences of their election : 
by unconditional reprobation, the counterpart 
of the former doctrine, is meant a non-election 
or rejection of certain persons from eternal sal- 
vation — unbelief and disobedience following this 
rejection as necessary consequences. Such kind 
of election and rejection has no place in this 
chapter, although the subject of it is the election 
and rejection of bodies of men, which is a case 
more unfettered with conditions than any other. 
We have, indeed, in it several instances of un- 
conditional election. Such was that of the de- 
scendants of Isaac to be God's visible Church, 
in preference to those of Ishmael: such was 
that of Jacob, to the exclusion of Esau ; which 
election was declared when the children were 
yet in the womb, before they had done "good 
or evil:" so that the blessing of the special 
covenant did not descend upon the posterity of 
Jacob because of any righteousness in Jacob, 
nor was it taken away from the descendants of 
Esau because of any wickedness in their pro- 
genitor. In like manner, when Almighty God 
determined no longer to found his visible Church 
upon natural descent from Abraham in the line 



of Isaac and Jacob, nor in any line according to 
the flesh, but to make faith in his Son Jesus 
Christ the gate of admission into this privilege, 
he acted according to the same sovereign plea- 
sure. It is not impossible to conceive that he 
might have carried on his saving purposes among 
the Gentiles, through Christ, without setting up 
a visible Church among them ; as, before the 
coming of Christ, he carried on such purposes 
in the Gentile nations — unless we suppose that 
all but the Jews perished — without collecting 
them into a body, and making himself their head 
as his Church, and calling himself "their God" 
1 by special covenant, and by visible and constant 
signs acknowledging them to be "his people." 
Greatly inferior would have been the mercy to 
the Gentile world had this plan been adopted ; 
and, as far as it appears to us, the system of 
Christianity would have been much less efficient. 
We are, indeed, bound to believe this, since Di- 
i vine wisdom and goodness have determined on 
another mode of procedure ; but still it is con- 
ceivable. On the contrary, the purpose of God 
, was now not only to continue a visible Church 
in the world, but to extend it, in its visible, 
collective, and organized form, into all nations. 
Yet this resolve rested on no goodness in those 
who were to be subjects of it: both Jews and 
I Gentiles were "concluded under sin," and "the 
whole world was guilty before God." As this 
i plan is carried into effect by extending itself 
! into different nations, we see the same sovereign 
' pleasure. A man of Macedonia appears to Paul 
in a vision by night, and cries, "Come over and 
\ help us ;" but we have no reason to believe that 
. the Macedonians were better than other Gentiles, 
! although they were elected to the enjoyment of 
1 the privileges and advantages of evangelical 
ordinances. So, in modern times, parts of Hin- 
dostan have been elected to receive the gospel, 
and yet its inhabitants presented nothing more 
worthy of this election than the people of Thibet 
! or California, who have not yet been elected. 
We call this sovereignty — not, indeed, in the 
sense of many Calvinistic writers, who appear to 
understand, by the sovereign acts of God, those 
procedures which he adopts only to show that he 
has the power to execute them ; but because the 
reasons of them — whether they are reasons of 
judgment, or wisdom, or mercy — are hidden 
from us ; either that we have no immediate 
interest in them, or that they are too deep and 
ample for our comprehension, or because it is 
an important lesson for men to be taught to bow 
with reverent submission to his regal preroga- 
i tives. This is the unconditional election and 
j non-election taught by the apostle in this chap- 
i ter ; but what we deny is, that either the spirit- 



CII. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



543 



ual blessings connected with religious privileges 
follow as necessary consequences from this elec- 
tion, or that unbelief, disobedience, and eternal 
ruin follow, in the same manner, from non- 
election. Of both these opinions the apostle's 
discourse itself furnishes abundant refutation. 

Let us take the instances of election. The 
descendants of Abraham in the line of Isaac and 
Jacob were elected ; but true faith, and obedi- 
ence, and salvation, did not follow as infallible 
consequents of that election. On the contrary, 
the "Jew outwardly," and the "Jew inwardly," 
were always distinguished in the sight of God ; 
and the children of Abraham's faith, not the chil- 
dren of Abraham's body, were the true "Israel 
of God." Again, the Gentiles were at length 
elected to be the visible Church of God ; but obe- 
dience and salvation did not follow as necessary 
consequents of this election. On the contrary, 
many Gentiles chosen to special religious privi- 
leges have, in all ages, neglected the great salva- 
tion, and have perished, though professing the 
name of Christ ; and in that pure age in which 
St. Paul wrote, when comparatively few Gentiles 
entered the Church but with a sincere faith in 
Christ, he warns all of the danger of excision 
for unbelief and disobedience: "Thou standest 
by faith: be not high-minded, but fear." "For 
if God spared not the natural branches, take 
heed lest he also spare not thee." "Toward thee 
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness ; oth- 
erwise thou also shalt be cut off." Certain, 
therefore, it is, that although this collective 
election of bodies of men to religious privileges, 
and to become the visible Church of God, be 
unconditional, the salvation to which these privi- 
leges were designed to lead, depends upon per- 
sonal faith and obedience. 

Let us turn, then, to the instances of non- 
election or rejection ; and here it will be found 
that unbelief, disobedience, and punishment, do 
not follow as infallible consequents of this dis- 
pensation. Abraham was greatly interested for 
Ishmael, and obtained, in answer to his prayer, 
at least temporal promises in his behalf, and in 
that of his posterity ; and there is no reason to 
conclude from any thing which occurs in the sa- 
cred writers, that his Arabian descendants were 
shut out, except by their own choice and fault, at 
any time, from the hopes of salvation ; at least 
previous to their embracing the imposture of 
Mohammed ; for if so, we must give up Job and 
his friends as reprobates. The knowledge of 
the true God existed long in Arabia; and "Ara- 
bians" were among the fruits of primitive Christi- 
anity, as we learn from the Acts of the Apostles. 
Nor have wc any ground to conclude' that the 
Edomitcs, as such, were excluded from the mer- 



cies of God, because of their non-election as his 
visible Church. Their proximity to the Jewish 
nation must have served to preserve among them 
a considerable degree of religious knowledge ; 
and their continuance as a people for many ages 
may argue at least no great enormity of wicked- 
ness among them ; which is confirmed by the 
reasons given for their ultimate destruction. The 
final malediction against this people is uttered 
by the Prophet Malachi: "Whereas Edom saith, 
We are impoverished, but we will return and 
build the desolate places, thus saith the Lord 
of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down ; 
and they shall call them the border of wicked- 
ness, and The people against whom the Lord 
hath indignation for ever." i. 4. Thus their de- 
struction was the result of their "wickedness" 
in the later periods of their history ; nor have 
we any reason to conclude that this was more 
inevitable than that of other ancient nations, 
whom God, as in the case of Assyria, called to 
repentance; but who, not regarding the call, 
were finally destroyed. That the Edomites were 
not, in more ancient times, the objects of the 
Divine displeasure, is manifest from Deut. ii. 5, 
where it is recorded that God commanded the 
Israelites, "Meddle not with them ; for I will not 
give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot- 
breadth ; because I have given Mount Seir unto 
Esau for a possession." They also outlived, as 
a people, the ten tribes of Israel : they continued 
to exist when the two tribes were carried into 
captivity to Babylon ; and about the year of the 
world 3875, or 129 before the Christian era, John 
Hircanus entirely subdued them, and obliged 
them to incorporate with the Jewish nation and 
to receive its religion. They professed conse- 
quently the same faith, and were thus connected 
with the visible Church of God. 1 

We come, finally, to the case of the rejected 
Jews in the very age of the apostles. The pur- 
pose of God, as we have seen, was to abolish the 
former ground upon which his visible Church 
had for so many ages been built, that of natural 
descent from Abraham by Isaac and Jacob ; but 
this was so far from shutting out the Jews from 
spiritual blessings, that though, as Jews, they 
were now denied to be God's Church, yet they 
were all invited to come in with the Gentiles, or 
rather to lead the way into the new Churoh 
established on the new principle of faith in 
Jesus, as the Christ. Hence the apostles were 



i "Having conquered the Edomites, or [dumeans," says 
Prldeaux, "he reduced them to this necessity, either to 
embrace the Jewish religion, or else to leave the country, 
and seek new dwellings elsewhere; whereon, choosing 

rather to leave their idolatry than their country, thev all 

became proselytes to the Jewish religion," etc (Cbnnes. 

vol. iii. pp. 866, 866.) 



544 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



commanded to "begin at Jerusalem" to preach 
the gospel ; hence they made the Jews the first 
offer in every place in Asia Minor, and other 
parts of the Koman empire, into which they 
travelled on the same blessed errand. Many of 
the Jews accepted the call, entered into the 
Church state on the new principle on which the 
Church of Christ was now to be elected, and hence 
they are called, by St. Paul, "the remnant ac- 
cording to the election of grace," Rom. xi. 5, 
and "the election.'" The rest, it is true, are said 
to have been "blinded;" just in the same sense 
as Pharaoh was hardened. He hardened his own 
heart, and was judicially left to his obduracy : 
they blinded themselves by their prejudices and 
worldliness and spiritual pride, and were at 
length judicially given up to blindness. But 
then might they not all have had a share in this 
new election into this new Church of God ? Truly, 
every one of them ; for thus the apostle argues, 
Rom. ix. 30-32, "What shall we say then? That 
the Gentiles, which followed not after righteous- 
ness, have attained to righteousness, even the 
righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, which 
followed after the law of righteousness, hath not 
attained to the law of righteousness. Whereforel 
Because they sought it not by faith, but, as it 
were, by the works of the law." And thus we 
have it plainly declared that they were excluded 
from the new spiritual Church of God, not by 
any act of sovereignty, not by any decree of 
reprobation, but by an act of their own : they 
rejected the doctrine and way of faith; they at- 
tained not unto righteousness, becausethej sought 
it not by faith. 

The collective election and rejection taught in 
this chapter is not then unconditional, in the 
sense of the Calvinists ; and neither the salva- 
tion of the people elected, nor the condemnation 
of the people rejected, flows as necessary conse- 
quents from these acts of the Divine sovereignty. 
They are, indeed, mysterious procedures; for 
doubtless it must be allowed that they place 
some portions of men in circumstances more 
favored than others ; but even in such cases God 
has shut out the charge of " unrighteousness," by 
requiring from men according "to what they 
have, and not according to what they have not," 
as we learn from many parts of Scripture which 
reveal the principles of the Divine administration, 
both as to this life and another ; for no man is 
shut out from the mercy of God, but by his own 
fault. He has connected these events also with 
wise and gracious general plans, as to the human 
race. They are not acts of arbitrary will, or of 
caprice: they are acts of "wisdom and know- 
ledge," the mysterious bearings of which are to be 
in future times developed. "0 the depth of the 



[PART n. 

riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! 
how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways 
past finding out !" These are the devout expres- 
sions with which St. Paul concludes this dis- 
course ; but they would ill apply to the sover- 
eign, arbitrary, and unconditional reprobation 
of men from God's mercies in time and eternity, 
on the principle of taking some and leaving 
others without any reason in themselves. There 
is no plan in this ; no wisdom ; no mystery ; and 
it is capable of no further development for the 
instruction and benefit of the world; for that 
which rests originally on no reason but solely on 
arbitrary will, is incapable, from its very nature, 
of becoming the component part of a deeply laid, 
and, for a time, mysterious plan, which is to be 
brightened into manifest wisdom, and to termi- 
nate in the good of mankind and the glory of God. 

The only argument of any weight which is 
urged to prove that, in the election spoken of in 
this discourse of St. Paul, individuals are in- 
tended, is, that though it should be allowed that 
the apostle is speaking of the election of bodies 
of men to be the visible Church of God, yet, as 
none are acknowledged by him to be his true 
Church except true believers, therefore, the 
election of men to faith and eternal life, as indi- 
viduals, must necessarily be included, or, rather, 
is the main thing spoken of. For as the spir- 
itual seed of Abraham were the only persons 
allowed to be "the Israel of God" under the 
Old Testament dispensation; and as, upon the 
rejection of the Jews, true believers only, both 
of Jews and Gentiles, were allowed to constitute 
the Church of Christ, the spiritual seed of Abra- 
ham, under the law, and genuine Christians, 
both of Jews and Gentiles, under the gospel, are 
"the election," and the "remnant according to the 
election of grace," mentioned by the apostle. 

In this argument truth is greatly mixed up with 
error, which a few observations will disentangle. 

1. It is a mere assumption, that the spiritual 
Israelites, under the law, in opposition to the 
Israelites by birth, are anywhere called "the 
election;" and "the remnant according to the 
election of grace;" or even alluded to under 
these titles. The first phrase occurs in Romans 
xi. 7: "What then? Israel hath not obtained 
that which he seeketh for ; but the election hath 
obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Here 
it is evident that "the election" means the 
Jews of that day who believed in Christ, in 
opposition to "the rest," who believed not; in 
other words, "the election" was that part of the 
Jews who had been chosen into the Christian 
Church, by faith. The second phrase occurs 
in verse 5 of the same chapter: "Even so, then, 
at this present time, also, there is ^remnant ac- 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OE CHRISTIANITY. 



545 



cording to the election of grace ;" where the 
same class of persons, the believing Jews, who 
submitted to the plan of election into the Church 
by '■'■grace" through faith, are the only persons 
spoken of. Nor are these terms used to desig- 
nate the believing Gentiles : they belong exclu- 
sively to the Christianized portion of the Jewish 
nation, and as the contrary assumption is with- 
out any foundation, the inferences drawn from 
it are imaginary. 

2. It is true that, under the Old Testament 
dispensation, the spiritual seed of Abraham were 
the only part of the Israelites who were, with 
reference to their spiritual and eternal state, ac- 
cepted of God ; but it is not true that the elec- 
tion of which the apostle speaks was confined to 
them. With reference to Esau and Jacob, the 
apostle says, Homans ix. 11, 13: "For the 
children being not yet born, neither having done 
good or evil, that the purpose of God, according 
to election, might stand, not of works, but of him 
that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall 
serve the younger ; as it is written, Jacob have 
I loved, but Esau have I hated." The " elec- 
tion" here spoken of, or God's purpose to elect, 
relates to Jacob being chosen in preference to 
Esau ; which election, as we have seen, re- 
spected the descendants of Jacob. Now, if this 
meant the election of the pious descendants of 
Jacob only, and not his natural descendants, 
then the opposition between the election of the 
progeny of Jacob, and the non-election of the 
progeny of Esau, is destroyed ; and there was 
no reason to say, " Jacob have I loved, but Esau 
have I hated," or loved less ; but the pious de- 
scendants of Jacob have I loved and elected ; and 
the rest I have not loved, and therefore have not 
elected. Some of the Calvinistic commentators 
have felt this difficulty, and therefore say, that 
these cases are not given as examples of the elec- 
tion and reprobation of which the apostle speaks, 
but as illustrations of it. If considered as illus- 
trations, they must be felt to be of a very per- 
plexing kind ; for how the preference of one 
nation to another, when, as we have seen, this 
did not infallibly secure the salvation of the more 
favored nation, nor the eternal destruction of the 
less favored, can illustrate the election of indi- 
viduals to eternal life, and the reprobation of 
other individuals to eternal death, is difficult to 
conceive. But they are manifestly examples of 
that one election, of which the apostlo speaks 
throughout ; and not illustrations of one kind of 
election by another. They are the instances 
which he gives in proof that the election of the 
believing Jews of his day to be, along with the 
believing Gentiles, the visible Church of God, 
and the rejection of the Jcays after the flesh, were 



not contrary to the promises of God made to 
Abraham ; because God had, in former times, 
made distinctions between the natural descend- 
ants of Abraham as to Church privileges, with- 
out any impeachment of his faithfulness to his 
word. Again, if the election of which the apostle 
speaks were that of pious Jews in all ages, so 
that they alone stood in a Church relation to 
God, and were thus the only Jews in covenant 
with him, how could he speak of the rejection of 
the other portion of the Jews ? Of their being 
cut off? Of the covenants "pertaining" to them? 
They could not be rejected who were never 
received ; nor cut off, who were never branches 
in the stock ; nor have covenants pertaining to 
them, if in these covenants they had never been 
included. 

3. This notion, that the ancient election of a 
part of the descendants of Abraham spoken of 
by the apostle was of the pious Jews only, and, 
therefore, a personal election, is, in part, grounded 
by these commentators upon a mistaken view of 
the meaning of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and 
ninth verses in this chapter ; in which they have 
been sometimes incautiously followed by those 
of very different sentiments, and who have thus 
somewhat entangled themselves. " Not as though 
the word of God hath taken none effect. For 
they are not all Israel which are of Israel; 
neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, 
are they all children; but, In Isaac shall thy 
seed be called. That is, They which are the 
children of the flesh, these are not the children 
of God; but the children of the promise are 
counted for the seed. For this is the word of 
promise. At this time will I come, and Sarah 
shall have a son." In this passage, the inter- 
preters in question suppose that St. Paul distin- 
guishes between the spiritual Israelites, and those 
of natural descent ; between the spiritual seed 
of Abraham, and his seed according to the flesh. 
Yet the passage not only affords no evidence that 
this was his intention, but implies just the con- 
trary. Our view of its meaning is given above ; 
but it may be necessary to support it more 
fully. 

Let it then be recollected that the apostle is 
speaking of that great event, the rejection of the 
Jews from being any longer the visible Church 
of God, on account of natural descent ; and that 
in this passage he shows that the purpose of God 
to construct his Church upon a new basis, that 
of faith in Christ, although it would exclude t he- 
body of the Jewish people from this Chuivh, 
sinco they rtfused "tho election oi' grace'' 
through faith, would not prove that "the word 

of God had fallen" to the ground: or, as the 
literal meaning of the original is rendered in 



548 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



our version, " hath taken none effect." The word 
of God referred to can only be God's original 
promise to Abraham, to be "a God to him and 
to his seed after him ;" which was often repeated 
to the Jews in after ages, in the covenant en- 
gagement, " I will be to you a God, and ye shall 
be to me a people ;" a mode of expression which 
signifies, in all the connections in which it stands, 
an engagement to acknowledge them as his 
visible Church : he being publicly acknowledged 
on their part as "their God," or object of wor- 
ship and trust; and they, on the other, being 
acknowledged by him as his peculiar "people." 
This, therefore, we are to take to be the sense 
of the promise to Abraham and to his seed. 
How, then, does the apostle prove that the 
"word of God had not fallen to the ground," 
although the natural seed of Abraham, the Jews 
of that day, had been rejected as his Church ? 
He proves it by showing that all the children of 
Abraham by natural descent had not, in the 
original intention of the promise, been "counted," 
or reckoned, as "the seed" to which these pro- 
mises had been made ; and this he establishes by 
referring to those acts of God by which he had, 
in his sovereign pleasure, conferred the Church 
relation upon the descendants of Abraham only 
in certain lines, as in those of Isaac and Jacob, 
and excluded the others. In this view, the argu- 
ment is cogent to his purpose. By the exercise 
of the same sovereignty, God had now resolved 
not to connect the Church relation with natural 
descent, even in the line of Isaac and Jacob ; 
but to establish it on a ground which might com- 
prehend the Gentile nations also, the common 
ground of faith in Christ. The mere children 
of the flesh were, therefore, in this instance ex- 
cluded; and "the children of the promise," the 
promise now made to believing Jews and Gen- 
tiles, those begotten by the word of the gospel, 
were "counted for the seed." But though it is 
a great truth that only the children of the gospel 
promise are now "counted for the seed," it does 
not follow that the children of the promise made 
to Sarah were all spiritual persons; and, as 
such, the only subjects of that Church relation 
which was connected with that circumstance. 
That the Gentiles who believed upon the publi- 
cation of the gospel were always contemplated 
as a part of that seed to which the promises 
were made, the apostle shows in a former part 
of the same epistle; but that "mystery" was 
not in early times revealed. God had not then 
formed, nor did he till the apostle's age form, 
his visible Church solely on the principle of faith, 
and a moral relation. This is the character of 
the new, not of the old dispensation ; and the dif- 
ferent grounds of the Church relation were suited 



to the design of each. One was to preserve truth 
from extinction ; the other to extend it into all 
nations : in one, therefore, a single people, taken 
as a nation into political as well as religious rela- 
tions with God, was made the deposit of the 
truth to be preserved; in the other, a national 
distinction, and lines of natural descent, could 
not be recognized, because the object was to 
call all nations to the obedience of the same 
faith, and to place all on an equality before 
God. As the very ground of the Church rela- 
tion, then, under the Old Testament, was natural 
descent from Abraham ; and as it was mixed up 
and even identified with a political relation also, 
the ancient election of which the apostle speaks 
could not be confined to spiritual Jews ; and 
even if it could be proved that the Church of 
God, under the new dispensation, is to be con- 
fined to true believers only, yet that would not 
prove that the ancient Church of God had that 
basis alone, since we know it had another, and 
a more general one. "When, therefore, the apos- 
tle says, "For they are not all Israel which are 
of Israel," the distinction is not between the 
spiritual and the natural Israelites ; but be- 
tween that part of the Israelites who continued 
to enjoy Church privileges, and those who were 
"of Israel," or descendants of Jacob, surnamed 
Israel, as the ten tribes and parts of the two, 
who, being dispersed among the heathen for their 
sins, were no longer a part of God's visible 
Church. This is the first instance which the 
apostle gives of the rejection of a part of the 
natural seed of Abraham from the promise. He 
strengthens the argument by going up higher, 
even to those who had immediately been born to 
Abraham, the very children of his body, Ishmael 
and Isaac. "The children of the flesh;" that is, 
Ishmael and his descendants, (so called, because 
he was born naturally, not supernaturally, as 
Isaac was, according to "the promise" made to 
Abraham and Sarah,) they, says the apostle, 
are not the "children of God;" that is, as the 
context still shows, not "the seed" to whom the 
promise that he would be "a God to Abraham 
and his seed" was made; "but the children of 
the promise," that is, Isaac and his descendants, 
were " counted for the seed." And that we 
might not mistake this, "the promise" referred 
to is added by the apostle ; "for this is the word 
of the promise, At this time will I come, and 
Sarah shall have a son." Of this promise, the 
Israelites by natural descent were as much u tke 
children" as the spiritual Israelites; and, there- f 
fore, to confine it to the latter is wholly gra- 
tuitous, and contrary to the words of the apostle. 
It is indeed an interesting truth, that a deep and 
spiritual mystery ran through that part of the 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



547 



history of Abraham here referred to, which the 
apostle opens in his Epistle to the Galatians: 
" The children of the bond-woman and her son," 
symbolized the Jews who sought justification by 
the law; and "the children of the promise," 
"the children of the free woman," those who 
were justified by faith, and born sup ernatur ally, 
that is, "born again," and made heirs of the 
heavenly inheritance. But these things, says 
St. Paul, are an "allegory;" and therefore 
could not be the thing allegorized, any more than 
a type can be the thing typified ; for a type is 
always of an inferior nature to the antitype, and 
is indeed something earthly, adumbrating that 
which is spiritual and heavenly. It follows, 
therefore, that although the choosing of Isaac 
and his descendants prefigured the choosing of 
true believers (persons born supernaturally un- 
der the gospel dispensation) to be "the children 
of God;" and that the rejection of the "child- 
ren of the flesh," typified the rejection of the un- 
believing Jews from God's Church, because they 
had nothing but natural descent to plead ; nay, 
though we allow that these events might be alle- 
gorical, on one part, of the truly believing Israel- 
ites, in all ages ; and, on the other, of those who 
were Jews only "outwardly," and, therefore, as 
to the heavenly inheritance were not "heirs;" 
yet still that which typified and represented in 
allegory these spiritual mysteries, was not the 
spiritual mystery itself. It was a comparatively 
gross and earthly representation of it ; and the 
passage is, therefore, to be understood of the 
election of the natural descendants of Isaac, as 
the children of the promise made to Sarah, 
to be "the seed" to which the promises of 
Church privileges and a Church relation were 
intended to be in force, though still subject to 
the election of the line of Jacob in preference 
to that of Esau ; and subject again, at a still 
greater distance of time, to the election of the 
tribe of Judah, to continue God's visible Church, 
till the coming of Messiah, while the ten tribes, 
who were equally "of Israel," were rejected. 

4. That this election of bodies of men to be 
the visible Church of God involved the election 
of individuals into the true Church of God, and, 
consequently, their election to eternal life, is 
readily acknowledged ; but this weakens not in 
the least the arguments by which we have shown 
that the apostle, in this chapter, speaks of col- 
lective, and not of individual election — on the 
'contrary, it establishes them. Let us, to illus- 
trate this, first take the case of the ancient 
Jewish Church. 

The end of God's election of bodies of men to 
peculiar religious advantages is, doubtless, as to 
the individuals of which these bodies arc com- 



posed, their recovery from sin» and their eternal 
salvation. Hence, to all such individuals supe- 
rior means of instruction, and more efficient 
means of salvation, are afforded, along with a 
deeper responsibility. The election of an indivi- 
dual into the true Church, by writing his name in 
heaven, is, however, an effect not dependent upon 
the election of the body to which he belongs. It 
follows only from his personal repentance and 
justifying faith ; or else we must say that men 
are members of the true spiritual Church before 
they repent and have justifying faith, for which, 
assuredly, we have no warrant in Scripture. In- 
dividual election is, then, another act of God, 
subsequent to the former. The former is sove- 
reign and unconditional — the latter rests upon 
revealed reasons, and is not, as we shall just 
now more fully show, unconditional. These two 
kinds of election, therefore, are not to be con- 
founded ; and it is absurd to argue that collec- 
tive election has no existence because there is an 
individual election, since the latter, on the con- 
trary, necessarily supposes the former. Tlae 
Jews, as a body, had their visible Church state 
and outward privileges, although the pious Jews 
alone availed themselves of them to their own 
personal salvation. As to the Christian Church, 
there is a great difference in its circumstances ; 
but the principle, though modified, is still there. 
The basis of this Church was to be — not 
natural descent from a common head : marking 
out, as that Church, some distinct family, tribe, 
and, as it increased in numbers, some one nation, 
invested too, as a nation must be, with a political 
character and state — but faith in Christ. Yet 
even this faith supposes a previous sovereign 
and unconditional collective election. For, as 
the apostle argues, "faith cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God;" but "how shall 
they hear without a preacher? and how shall 
they preach except they be sent?" Now, this 
sending to one Gentile nation before another 
Gentile nation — a distinction which continues to 
be made in the administration of the Divine 
government to this day — is that sovereign, un- 
conditional election of the people constituting 
that nation, to the means of becoming God's 
Church by the preaching of the gospel, through 
the men "sent" to them for this purpose. 
The persons who first believed were, for the most 
part, real Christians, in the sense of being truly 
and in heart turned to God. They could not, 
generally, go so far as to be baptised into tho 
name of Christ, in the face of persecution, and 
in opposition to their own former prejudices, 
without a considerable previous ripeness oi' ex- 
perience, and decision of oharaoter. Under the 
character of "saints" in the highest sense, the 



548 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



primitive Churches are addressed in the apos- 
tolical epistles ; and such we are bound to con- 
clude they were, or they would not have been so 
called by men who had the "discernment of 
spirits." Whatever, then, the number was, 
whether small or great, who first received the 
word of the gospel in every place, they openly 
confessed Christ, assembled for public worship ; 
and thus the promise was fulfilled in them: "I 
will be to them a God," the object of worship 
and trust, "and they shall be to me a people." 
They became God's visible Church ; and for the 
most part entered into that, and into the true 
and spiritual Church at the same time. But this 
was not the case with all the members ; and we 
have, therefore, still an election of bodies of men 
to a visible Church state, independent of their 
election as "heirs of eternal life." The children 
of believers, even as children, and therefore in- 
capable of faith, did not remain in the same 
state of alienation from God as the children of 
unbelievers ; nay, though but one parent be- 
lieved, yet the children are pronounced by St. 
Paul to be "holy." "For the unbelieving hus- 
band is sanctified by the wife, and the unbeliev- 
ing wife by the husband : else were your child- 
ren unclean; but now < are they holy." When 
both parents believed, and trained up their 
families to believe in Christ, and to worship the 
true God, the case was stronger : the family was 
then "a Church in the house," though all the 
members of it might not have saving faith. 
Sincere faith or assent to the gospel, with de- 
sires of instruction and salvation, appear to have 
uniformly entitled the person to baptism ; and 
the use of Christian ordinances followed. The 
numbers of the visible Church swelled till it 
comprehended cities, and at last countries, whose 
inhabitants were thus elected to special religious 
privileges ; and, forsaking idols and worshipping 
God, constituted his visible Church among Gen- 
tile nations. And that the apostle Paul regarded 
all who "called upon the name of the Lord" as 
Christian Churches, is evident from his asserting 
his authority of reproof and counsel, and even 
excision, over them, as to their unworthy mem- 
bers ; and also from his threatening the Gentile 
Churches with the fate of the Jewish Church — 
unless they stood by faith, they also should be 
"cut off," that is, be unchurched. Of his full 
meaning, subsequent history gives the elucida- 
tion, in the case of those very Churches in Asia 
Minor which he himself planted ; and which, 
departing from the faith of Christ, his true 
doctrine, have been, in many instances, "cut 
off," and swallowed up in the Mohammedan 
delusion; so that Christ is there no longer wor- 
shipped. The whole proves a sovereign, uncon- 



ditional election, independent of personal elec- 
tion: unconditional as to the people to whom 
the gospel was first sent — unconditional as to 
the children born of believing parents — uncon- 
ditional as to the inhabitants of those countries 
who, when a Christian Church was first esta- 
blished among them, came, without seeking it, 
into the possession of invaluable and efficacious 
means and ordinances of Christian instruction 
and salvation ; and who all, finally, by education, 
became professors of the true faith, and, so far 
as assent goes, sincere believers. This election, 
too, as in the Jewish Church, was made with 
reference to a personal election into the true 
spiritual Church of God ; but personal election 
was conditional. It rested, as we have seen, 
upon personal repentance and justifying faith; 
or else we must hold that men could be members 
of the true Church without either. This elec- 
tion was then dependent upon the other, and, 
instead of disproving, abundantly confirms it. 
The tenor of the apostle's argument sufficiently 
shows that the transfer of the Church state and 
relation from one body of men to others, is that 
which in this discourse he has in view : in other 
words, he speaks of the election of bodies of 
men to religious advantages, not of individuals 
to eternal life ; and however intimately the one 
may be connected with the other, the latter is 
not necessarily involved in the former; since 
superior religious privileges, in all ages, have to 
many proved but an aggravation of their con- 
demnation. 

The third kind of election is personal elec- 
tion, or the election of individ\ials to be the 
children of God, and the heirs of eternal life. 

It is not at all disputed, between us and those 
who hold the Calvinistic view of election, whe- 
| ther believers in Christ are called the elect of 
| God with reference to their individual state and 
| individual relation to God as his "people," in 
the highest sense of that phrase. Such passages 
as "the elect of God," "chosen of God," "chosen 
J in Christ," "elect according to the foreknowledge 
of God the Father," and many others, we allow, 
therefore, although borrowed from that collec- 
tive election of which we have spoken, to be 
descriptive of an act of grace in favor of certain 
persons, considered individually. 

The first question, then, which naturally arises, 
respects the import of that act of grace which is 
termed choosing, or an election. It is not a 
choosing to particular offices and service, which 
is the first kind of election we have mentioned 
— nor is it that collective election to religious 
privileges, and a visible Church state, on which 
we have more largely dwelt. For although "the 
elect" have an individual interest in such an 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



549 



election, as parts of the collective body thus 
placed in possession of the ordinances of Chris- 
tianity, yet many others have the same advan- 
tages who still remain under the guilt and con- 
demnation of sin and practical unbelief. The 
individuals properly called "the elect" are they 
•who have been made partakers of the grace and 
saving efficacy of the gospel. "Many," says 
our Lord, "are called, but few chosen." 

What true personal election is we shall find 
explained in two clear passages of Scripture. It 
is explained negatively by our Lord, where he 
says to his disciples, "I have chosen you out 
of the world:" it is explained positively by St. 
Peter when he addresses his first epistle to the 
"elect, according to the foreknowledge of God 
the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, 
unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of 
Jesus Christ." To be elected, therefore, is to be 
separated from "the world," and to be sanctified 
by the Spirit, and by the blood of Christ. 

It follows, then, that election is not only an 
act of God done in time, but also that it is sub- 
sequent to the administration of the means of 
salvation. The "calling" goes before the "elec- 
tion:" the publication of the doctrine of "the 
Spirit," and the atonement, called by Peter "the 
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," before 
that "sanctification" through which they become 
"the elect" of God. The doctrine of eternal 
election is thus brought down to its true mean- 
ing. Actual election cannot be eternal; for, 
from eternity, the elect were not actually chosen 
out of the world, and from eternity, they could 
not be " sanctified unto obedience." The phrases 
"eternal election," and "eternal decree of elec- 
tion," so often in the lips of Calvinists, can, in 
common sense, therefore, mean only an eternal 
purpose to elect, or a purpose formed in eternity, 
to elect, or choose out of the world, and sanctify 
in time, by "the Spirit and the blood of Jesus." 
This is a doctrine which no one will contend 
with them ; but when they graft upon it another, 
that God hath, from eternity, "chosen in Christ 
unto salvation" a set number of men, li certam 
guorundam hominum multitudinem," not upon 
foresight of faith and the obedience of faith, 
holiness, or of any other good quality or dispo- 
sition — as a cause or condition before required in 
man to be chosen — but unto faith, and tho obedi- 
ence of faith, holiness, etc., " non ex prcevisa fide, 
fideique obedientia, sanctitate, aut alia aliqua bona 
qualitate et disposilione," etc., (Judgment of the 
Synod of Dort,) it presents itself under a differ- 
ent aspect, and requires an appeal to tho word 
of God. 

This view of election has two parts : it is tho 
choosing of a set or determinate number of men, 



who cannot be increased or diminished, and it is 
unconditional. Let us consider each. 

With respect to the first, there is no text of 
Scripture which teaches that a fixed and deter- 
minate number of men are elected to eternal 
life ; and the passages which the Synod of Dort 
adduce in proof being such as they only infer 
the doctrine from, the Synod themselves allow 
that they have no express scriptural evidence 
for this tenet. But if there is no explicit scrip- 
ture in favor of the opinion, there is much 
against it; and to this test it must, therefore, 
be brought. 

The election here spoken of must either be 
election in eternity, or election in time. If the 
former, it can only mean a purpose of electing in 
time : if the latter, it is actual election, or choos- 
ing out of the world. 

Now, as to God's eternal purpose to elect, it is 
clear that is a subject on which we can know 
nothing but from his own revelation. We take, 
then, the matter on this ground. A purpose to 
elect is a purpose to save ; and when it is ex- 
plicitly declared in this revelation that God 
"willeth all men to be saved," and that "he 
willeth not the death of a sinner," either we must 
say that his will is contrary to his purpose — 
which would be to charge God foolishly, and in- 
deed has no meaning at all — or it agrees with 
his purpose. If, then, his will agrees with his 
purpose, that purpose was not confined to a 
"certain determinate number of men," but ex- 
tended to all "whosoever" should believe, that 
they might be elected and saved. 

Again, we have established it as the doctrine 
of Scripture that our Lord Jesus Christ died for 
all men, that all men through him might be 
saved ; but if he died in order to their salvation 
through faith, he died in order to their election 
through faith ; and God must have purposed this 
from eternity. 

Further, we have his own message to all to 
whom his servants preach the gospel. They are 
commanded to preach "to every creature:" "He 
that believeth shall be saved ; and he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." This is an un- 
questionable decree of God in time ; and, if God 
be unchangeable, it was his decree, as touching 
this matter, from all eternity. But this decree 
or purpose can in no way be reconciled to the 
doctrine of an eternal purpose to elect only "a 
set and determinate number." For the gospel 
could not be good news to "every creature" to 
whom it should be as such proclaimed, whioh is 
the first contradiction to the text. Nor would 
those who believe it not, but who are neverthe- 
less commanded to belieye it. have any power to 
believe it, which is the second contradiction ; for 



550 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



since they are to be " damned" for not believing, 
they must have had the power to believe, or they 
could not have come into condemnation for an 
act impossible to them to perform, or else we 
must admit it as a principle of the Divine govern- 
ment that God commands his creatures to do 
what under no circumstances they can do ; and 
then punishes them for not doing what he thus 
commands. Finally, he commands those that 
believe not, and who are alleged not to be in- 
cluded in this "fixed number" of elected per- 
sons, to believe the good tidings, as a matter in 
which they are interested : they are commanded 
to believe the gospel as a truth ; but if they are 
not interested in it, they are commanded to be- 
lieve a falsehood, which is the third contradic- 
tion ; and thus the text and the doctrine cannot 
consist together. 

As the whole argument on this point is in- 
volved in what we have already established con- 
cerning the universal extent of the benefits of 
Christ's death, we may leave it to be determined 
by what has been advanced on that topic ; ob- 
serving only that two of the points there con- 
firmed bear directly upon the doctrine that elec- 
tion is confined to a "fixed number of men." 
If we have proved from Scripture that the reason 
of the condemnation of men lies in themselves, 
and not in the want of a sufficient and effectual 
provision having been made in Christ for their 
salvation, then the number of the actually elect 
might be increased; and if it has been established 
that those for whom Christ died might "perish ;" 
and that true believers may "drawback unto 
perdition," and be "cast away," and fall into a 
state in which it were better for them " never to 
have known the way of righteousness," then the 
number of the elect may be diminished. To what 
has already been said on these subjects the 
reader is referred ; and we shall now only men- 
tion a few of the difficulties with which the doc- 
trine of an election from eternity of a determi- 
nate number of men to be made heirs of eternal 
life is attended. 

Whether men will look to the dark and repug- 
nant side of this doctrine of the eternal election 
of a certain number of men unto salvation or 
not, it unavoidably follows from it that all but 
the persons so chosen in Christ are placed utterly 
and absolutely, from their very birth, out of the 
reach of salvation ; and have no share at all in 
the saving mercies of God, who from eternity 
purposed to reject them, and that not for their 
fault as sinners. For all, except Adam and Eve, 
have come into the world with a nature which, 
left to itself, could not but sin ; and as the de- 
termination of God, never to give the reprobate 
the means of avoiding sin, could not rest upon 



[PART II. 

their fault, for what is absolutely inevitable can- 
not be charged on man as his fault, so it must 
rest where all the high Calvinistic divines place 
it — upon the mere will and sovereign pleasure 
of God. 

The difficulties of reconciling such a scheme 
as this to the nature of God, not as it is fancied 
by man, but as it is revealed in his own word, 
and to many other declarations of Scripture as 
to the principles of the administration both of 
his law and of his grace, one would suppose in- 
superable by any mind, and, indeed, are so re- 
volting that few of those who cling to the doc- 
trine of election will be found bold enough to 
keep them steadily in sight. They even think it 
uncandid for us who oppose these views to pur- 
sue them to their legitimate logical consequences. 
But in discussion this is inevitable ; and if it be 
done in fairness and in the spirit of candor, 
without pushing hard arguments into hard words, 
the cause of truth, and a right understanding of 
the word of God, will thereby be promoted. 

The doctrine of the election to eternal life only 
of a certain determinate number of men to sal- 
vation, involving, as it necessarily does, the doc- 
trine of the absolute and unconditional reproba- 
tion of all the rest of mankind, cannot, we may 
confidently affirm, be reconciled, 

1. To the love of God. " God is love." " The 
Lord is good to all ; and his tender mercies are 
over all his works." 

2. Nor to the wisdom of God ; for the bring- 
ing into being a vast number of intelligent crea- 
tures under a necessity of sinning, and of being 
eternally lost, teaches no moral lesson to the 
world ; and contradicts all those notions of wis- 
dom in the ends and processes of government 
which we are taught to look for, not only from 
natural reason but from the Scriptures. 

3. Nor to the grace of God, which is so often 
magnified in the Scriptures; "for doth it argue 
any sovereign or high strain, any superabound- 
ing richness of grace or mercy in any man, when 
ten thousand have equally offended him, only to 
pardon one or two of them?" — Goodwin's Agree- 
ment and Difference. And on such a scheme can 
there be any interpretation given of the passage, 
"Where sin abounded, grace did much more 
abound?" or in what sense has "the grace of God 
appeared unto all men" or even to one millionth 
part of them ? 

4. Nor can this merciless reprobation be re- 
conciled to any of those numerous passages in 
which Almighty God is represented as tenderly 
compassionate and pitiful to the worst and most 
unworthy of his creatures, even those who finally 
perish. " I have no pleasure in the death of him 
that dieth :" " Being grieved for the hardness of 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



551 



their hearts." "How often would I have ga- 
thered thy children together, as a hen gathereth 
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." 
"The Lord is long-suffering to us -ward, not 
willing that any should perish." "Ordespisest 
thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, 
and long-suffering ; not knowing that the good- 
ness of God leadeth thee to repentance." 

5. It is as manifestly contrary to his justice. 
Here, indeed, we would not assume to measure 
this attribute of God by unauthorized human 
conceptions ; but when God himself has appealed 
to those established notions of justice and equity 
which have been received among all enlightened 
persons, in all ages, as the measure and rule of 
his own, we cannot be charged with this pre- 
sumption. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth 
do right?" "Are not my ways equal ? saith the 
Lord." We may then be bold to affirm that jus- 
tice and equity in God are what they are taken 
to be among reasonable men; and if all men 
everywhere would condemn it, as most contrary 
to justice and right, that a sovereign should con- 
demn to death one or more of his subjects, for 
not obeying laws which it is absolutely impos- 
sible for them, under any circumstances which 
they can possibly avail themselves of, to obey, 
and much more the greater part of his subjects ; 
and to require them, on pain of aggravated pun- 
ishment, to do something in order to the pardon 
and remission of their offences which he knows 
they cannot do — say to stop the tide or to re- 
move a mountain — it implies a charge as awfully 
and obviously unjust against God, who is so 
holy and just in all his doings, so exactly 
just in the "judgment which he executeth," as 
to silence all his creatures, to suppose him to act 
precisely in the same manner as to those whom 
he has passed by and rejected, without any avoid- 
able fault of their own : to destroy them by the 
simple rule of his own sovereignty, or, in other 
words, to show that he has power to do it. In 
whatever light the subject be viewed, no fault, 
in any right construction, can be chargeable upon 
the persons so punished, or, as we may rather 
say, destroyed, since punishment supposes a judi- 
cial proceeding, which this act shuts out. For 
either the reprobates are destroyed for a pure 
reason of sovereignty, without any reference to 
their sinfulness, and thus all criminality is left 
out of the consideration ; or they are destroyed 
for the sin of Adam, to which they were not con- 
senting ; or for personal faults resulting from a 
corruption of nature which they brought into 
tho world with them, and which God wills not to 
correct, and they have no power to correct them- 
selves. Every received notion of justico is thus 
violated. We grant, indeed, that some proceed- 



ings of the Almighty may appear at first irre- 
concilable with justice which are not so : as that 
we should suffer pain and death, and be infected 
with a morally corrupt nature in consequence of 
the transgression of our first progenitors : that 
children should suffer for their parents' faults in 
the ordinary course of providence ; and that, in 
general calamities, the comparatively innocent 
should suffer the same evils as the guilty. But 
none of these are parallel cases. For the "free 
gift" has come upon all men, "in order to justi- 
fication of life," through "the righteousness" of 
the second Adam, so that the terms of our pro- 
bation are but changed. None are doomed to 
inevitable ruin, or the above words of the apostle 
would have no meaning ; and pain and death, as 
to all who avail themselves of the remedy, are 
made the instruments of a higher life, and of a 
superabounding of grace through Christ. The 
same observation may be made as to children 
who suffer evils for their parents' faults. This 
circumstance alters the terms of their probation ; 
but if every condition of probation leaves to men 
the possibility and the hope of eternal life, and 
the circumstances of all are balanced and weighed 
by him who administers the affairs of individuals 
on principles the end of which is to turn all the 
evils of life into spiritual and higher blessings, 
there is, obviously, no impeachment of justice in 
the circumstances of the probation assigned to 
any person whatever. As to the innocent suffer- 
ing equally with the guilty in general calamities, 
the persons so suffering are but comparatively 
innocent, and their personal transgressions 
against Gocl deserve a higher punishment than 
any which this life witnesses : this may also, as 
to them, be overruled for merciful purposes, and 
a future life presents its manifold compensations. 
But as to the non-elect, the whole case, in this 
scheme of sovereign reprobation, or sovereign 
pretention, is supposed to be before us. Their 
state is fixed, their afflictions in this life will not 
in any instance be overruled for ends of edifica- 
tion and salvation : they are left under a neces- 
sity of sinning in every condition ; and a future 
life presents no compensation, but a fearful look- 
ing for of fiery and quenchless indignation. It 
is surely not possible for the ingenuity of man 
to reconcile this to any notion of just government 
which has ever obtained ; and by the established 
notions of justice and equity in human affairs, 
toe are taught by the Scriptures themselves to judge 
of the Divine proceedings in all completely stated 
and comprehensible cases. 

6. Equally impossible is it to reconcile this 
notion to the sinceiuty of God in offering salva- 
tion by Christ to all who hoar (ho gospel, of 
whom this scheme supposes tho majority, or at 



552 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART TI. 



least great numbers, to be among the repro- 
bate. The gospel, as we have seen, is com- 
manded to be preached to " every creature ;" 
which publication of "good news to every crea- 
ture," is an offer of salvation "to every creature," 
accompanied with earnest invitations to embrace 
it, and admonitory comminations lest any should 
neglect and despise it. But does it not involve 
a serious reflection upon the truth and sincerity 
of God which men ought to shudder at, to as- 
sume, at the very time the gospel is thus 
preached, that no part of this good news was 
ever designed to benefit the majority, or any 
great part of those to whom it is addressed? 
that they to whom this love of God in Christ is 
proclaimed were never loved by God? that he 
has decreed that many to whom he offers salva- 
tion, and whom he invites to receive it, shall 
never be saved ? and that he will consider their 
sins aggravated by rejecting that which they 
never could receive, and which he never designed 
them to receive ? It is no answer to this to say, 
that we also admit that the offers of mercy are 
made by God to many whom he, by virtue of his 
prescience, knows will never receive them. We 
grant this ; but, not now to enter upon the ques- 
tion of foreknowledge, it is enough to reply, that 
here there is no insincerity. On the Calvinian 
scheme the offer of salvation is made to those 
for whose sins Christ made no atonement: on 
ours, he made atonement for the sins of all. On 
the former, the offer is made to those whom God 
never designed to embrace it ; on ours, to none 
but those whom God seriously and in truth wills 
that they should avail themselves of it : on their 
theory, the bar to the salvation of the non-elect 
lies in the want of a provided sacrifice for sin ; 
on ours, it rests solely in men themselves : one 
consists, therefore, with a perfect sincerity of 
offer; the other cannot be maintained without 
bringing the sincerity of God into question, and 
fixing a stigma upon his moral truth. 

7. Unconditional reprobation cannot be recon- 
ciled with that frequent declaration of Scripture, 
that God is no respecter or persons. This 
phrase, we grant, is not to be interpreted as 
though the bounties of the Almighty were dis- 
pensed in equal measures to his creatures. In 
the administration of favor, there is place for the 
exercise of that prerogative which, in a just 
sense, is called the sovereignty of God ; but jus- 
tice knows of but one rule : it is, in its nature, 
settled and fixed, and respects not the person, 
but the case. " To have respect of persons" is 
a phrase, therefore, in Scripture, which some- 
times refers to judicial proceedings, and signi- 
fies to judge from partiality and affection, and 
not upon the merits of the question. It is also 



used by St. Peter with reference to the accept- 
ance of Cornelius: "Of a truth I perceive that 
God is no respecter of persons; but in every 
nation, he that feareth him, and worketh right- 
eousness, is accepted with him." Here it is 
clear, that to respect persons, would be to reject 
or accept them without regard to their moral 
qualities, and on some national or other prejudice 
or partiality which forms no moral rule of any 
kind. But if the doctrine of absolute election 
and reprobation be true ; if we are to understand 
that men like Jacob and Esau, in the Calvinistic 
construction of the passage, while in the womb 
of their mother, nay, from eternity, are loved 
and hated, elected or reprobated, before they 
have done " good or evil," then it necessarily fol- 
lows, that there is precisely this kind of respect 
of persons with God ; for his acceptance or re- 
jection of men stands on some ground of aver- 
sion or dislike, which cannot be resolved into 
any moral rule, and has no respect to the merits 
of the case itself; and if the Scripture affirms 
that there is no such respect of persons with God, 
then the doctrine which implies it is contradicted 
by inspired authority. 

8. The doctrine of which we are showing the 
difficulties, brings with it the repulsive and 
shocking opinion of the eternal punishment of 
infants. Some Calvinists have, indeed, to get 
rid of the difficulty, or rather to put it out 
of sight, consigned them to annihilation ; but 
of the annihilation of any human being there 
is no intimation in the word of God. In order, 
therefore, to avoid the fearful consequence 
I of admitting the punishment of beings inno- 
! cent as to all actual sin, there is no other way 
! than to suppose all children dying in infancy to 
be an elected portion of mankind, which, how- 
| ever, would be a mere hypothesis brought in to 
serve a theory without any evidence. That some 
\ of those who, as they suppose, are under this 
sentence of reprobation, die in their infancy, is, 
probably, what most Calvinists allow; and, if 
their doctrine be received, cannot be denied ; and 
it follows, therefore, that all such infants are 
eternally lost. Now, we know that infants are 
not lost, because our Lord gave it as a reason 
why little children ought not to be hindered from 
coming unto him, that "of such is the kingdom 
of heaven." On which Calvin himself remarks, 
[Harm, in Matt. xix. 13,) "In this word, 'for 
of such is the kingdom of heaven,' Christ com- 
prehends as well little children themselves, as those 
who in disposition resemble them. Hac voce, 
tarn parvulos, quam eorum similes, compre- 
hendit." We are assured of the salvation of in- 
fants, also, because " the free gift has come upon 
all men to [in order to] justification of life," 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



553 



and because children are not capable of reject- 
ing that blessing, and must, therefore, derive 
benefit from it. The point, also, on which we 
have just now touched, that " there is no re- 
spect of persons with God," demonstrates it. 
For, as it will be acknowledged that some child- 
ren, dying in infancy, are saved, it must follow, 
from this principle and axiom in the Divine go- 
vernment, that all infants are saved ; for the case 
of all infants, as to innocence or guilt, sin or right- 
eousness, being the same, and God, as a judge, be- 
ing "no respecter of persons," but regarding only 
the merits of the case, he cannot make this awful 
distinction as to them, that one part shall be eter- 
nally saved and the other eternally lost. That 
doctrine, therefore, which implies the perdition 
of infants cannot be congruous to the Scriptures 
of truth, but is utterly abhorrent to them. {On 
the case of infants, see Part II., p. 391.) 

9. Finally, not to multiply these instances of 
the difficulties which accompany the doctrine 
of absolute reprobation, or of pretention, (to 
use the milder term, though the argument is not 
in the least changed by it,) it destroys the end 
of punitive justice. That end can only be to 
deter men from offence, and to add strength to 
the law of God. But if the whole body of the 
reprobate are left to the influence of their fallen 
nature without remedy, they cannot be deterred 
from sin by threats of inevitable punishment; 
nor can they ever submit to the dominion of the 
law of God : their doom is fixed, and threats 
and examples can avail nothing. 

We may leave every candid mind to the dis- 
cussion of these and many other difficulties, 
suggested by the doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 
as to the election of "a set and determinate 
number of men" to eternal life ; and proceed to 
consider the second branch of this opinion — 
that election is unconditional. "It was made," 
says the synod, "not upon foresight of faith, 
and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other 
good quality or disposition, (as a cause or con- 
dition before required in men to be chosen,) 
but unto faith, and the obedience of faith, holi- 
ness," etc. 

Election, we have already said, must be either 
God's purpose in eternity to elect actually, or it 
must be actual election itself in time ; for as 
election is choosing men "out of the world," 
into the true Church of Christ, actual election 
from eternity is not possible, because the sub- 
jects of election had no existence: there was no 
world to choose them "out of," and no Church 
into which to bring them. To affirm that any 
part of mankind were chosen from eternity, in 
purpose, (for in no other way could they be 
chosen,) to become members of the Church with- 



out "foresight of faith, and the obedience of 
faith," is therefore to say, that God purposed 
from all eternity to establish a distinction be- 
tween the world, " out" of which the elect are 
actually chosen, and the Church, which has no 
foundation in, or respect to, faith and obedi- 
ence; in other words, to constitute his Church 
of persons to whose faith and obedience he had 
no respect. For how is this conclusion to be 
avoided ? The subjects of this election, it seems, 
are chosen as men, as Peter, James,, and John, 
not as believers. God eternally purposed to 
make Peter, James, and John members of his 
Church, without respect to their faith or obedi- 
ence ; his Church is therefore constituted on the 
sole principle of this purpose, not upon the basis 
of faith and obedience ; and the persons chosen 
into it in time are chosen because they are of 
the number included in this eternal purpose, 
and with no regard to their being believers and 
obedient, or the contrary. How manifestly this 
opposes the word of God, we need scarcely stay 
to point out. It contradicts that specific distinc- 
tion constantly made in Scripture between the 
true Church and the world, the only marks of 
distinction being, as to the former, faith and obe- 
dience ; and as to the latter, unbelief and dis- 
obedience — in other words, the Church is com- 
posed not merely of men, as Peter, James, and 
John; but of Peter, James, and John believing 
and obeying; while all who believe not, and 
obey not, are "the world." The Scriptures 
make the essential elements of the Church to be 
believing and obeying men: the Synod of Dort 
makes them to be men in the simple condition 
of being included in a set and determinate num- 
ber, chosen with no respect to faith and obedi- 
ence. Thus we have laid two very different 
foundations upon which to place the superstruc- 
ture of the Church of Christ: one of them in- 
deed is to be found in the Scriptures, but the other 
only in the theories of men ; and as they agree 
not together, one of them must be renounced. 

But election, without respect to faith, is con- 
trary also to the history of the commencement 
and first constitution of the Church of Christ. 
Peter, James, and John did not become dis- 
ciples of Christ in unbelief and disobedience. 
The very act of their becoming disciples of 
Christ, unequivocally implied some degree both 
of faith and obedience. They were chosen, not 
as men, but as believing men. This is indicated 
also by the grand rite of baptism, instituted by 
Christ when he commissioned his disciples to 
preach the gospel, and call men into his Church, 
That baptism was the gate into this Church can- 
not be denied; but faith was required in order 
to baptism; and, where true faith existed, this 



554 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



open confession of Christ would necessarily fol- 
low, without delay. Here, then, we see on what 
grounds men were actually elected into the 
Church of Christ : it was with respect to their 
faith that they were thus chosen out of the world, 
and thus chosen into the Church. The rule, too, 
is universal; and if so, if it universally holds 
good that actual election has respect to faith, 
then, unless God's eternal purpose to elect he at 
variance with his electing, that is, unless he pur- 
poses one thing and does another differing from 
his purpose — purposes to elect without respect 
to faith, and only actually elects with respect to 
faith — his eternal purpose to elect had respect 
both to faith and obedience. 

It is true that the Synod of Dort says that 
election is "unto faith and the obedience of 
faith," etc., thereby making the end of election 
to be faith ; in other words, their doctrine is that 
some men were personally chosen to believe and 
obey, even before they existed. But we have no 
such doctrine in Scripture as the election of indi- 
viduals unto faith ; and it is inconsistent with 
several passages which expressly speak of per- 
sonal election. 

' ' Many are called, but few chosen. " In this pas- 
sage we must understand, that the many who are 
called, are called to believe and obey the gospel, or 
the calling means nothing ; in other words, they 
are not called. But if the end of this calling be 
faith and obedience, and the end of election also 
be faith and obedience, then have we in the text 
a senseless tautology; for if the many are called 
to believe and obey, then, of course, we need not 
have been told that the few are chosen to believe 
and obey, since the few are included in the many. 
But if the "choosing" of the "few" means, as 
it must, something different to the "calling" of 
the "many," then is the end of election different 
to the end of calling ; and if the election be, as 
is plain from the passage, consequent upon the 
calling, then it can mean nothing else than the 
choosing of those "few," of the "many," who, 
being obedient to the "calling," had previously 
believed and obeyed, into the true Church and 
family of God, which is the proper and direct 
object of personal election. This passage, there- 
fore, which unquestionably speaks of personal 
election, contradicts the notion of an election 
unto faith and obedience, and makes our election 
consequent upon our obedience tcr the calling, or 
evangelical invitation. 

Let this notion of personal election unto faith 
be tested also by another passage, in which, like 
the former, personal election is spoken of. "I 
have chosen you out of the world." John xv. 19. 
According to the notion of the Synod of Dort, 
the act of election consists in appointing or 



ordaining a certain number of the human race 
i to believe and obey : here the personal electing 
: act is a choosing out of the world, a choosing, 
manifestly, into the number of Christ's disciples, 
I which no man is capable of without a previous 
| faith; for the very act of becoming Christ's dis- 
! ciple was a confession of faith in him. 

A third passage in which election is spoken 
of as personal, or at least with more direct refer- 
ence to individual experience than to Christians 
in their collective capacity as the Church of 
Christ, is 1 Peter i. 2: "Elect according to the 
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sancti- 
fication of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprink- 
ling of the blood of Jesus Christ!" Here obedi- 
ence is not the end of election, but of the sancti- 
fication of the Spirit; and both are joined with 
the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus," (which, in 
all cases, is apprehended by faith,) as the media 
I through which our election is eifected — "elect 
j through sanctification of the Spirit," etc. These 
! cannot, therefore, be the ends of our personal 
election; for if we are elected "through''' that 
sanctification of the Spirit which produces obedi- 
ence, we are not elected, being unsanctified and 
disobedient, in order to be sanctified by the 
Spirit that we may obey : it is the work of the 
Spirit which produces obedient faith, and through 
both we are "elected" into the Church of God. 
Very similar to the passage just explained is 
2 Thess. ii. 13, 14: " But we are bound to give 
thanks alway to God for you, brethren, because 
God hath from the beginning chosen you unto 
salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit 
and belief of the truth ; whereunto he called 
you by our gospel to the obtaining of the glory 
of our Lord Jesus Christ." As the apostle had 
been predicting the future apostasy of persons 
' professing Christianity, he recollects, with grati- 
tude, that from "the beginning" from the very 
first reception of the gospel in Thessalonica, 
1 which was preached there by St. Paul himself 
J with great success, the Thessalonians had mani- 
, fested no symptoms of this apostasy, but had 
j been honorably steadfast in the faith. For this 
he gives thanks to God in the verses above 
! quoted, and in the 15th exhorts them still "to 
stand fast." When, therefore, Calvinistic com- 
mentators interpret the clause, "hath chosen you 
from the beginning," to mean election from 
eternity, they make a gratuitous assumption 
which has nothing in the scope of the passage 
to warrant it. Mr. Scott, indeed, (Notes in loc.) 
rather depends upon the "calling" of the Thes- 
salonians being, as he states, subsequent to their 
election, than upon an arbitrary interpretation 
of the clause "from the beginning" and says, 
; "If the calling of the Thessalonians was the 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



555 



effect of any preceding choice of them, it comes 
to the same thing whether the choice was made 
the preceding day, or from the foundation of the 
world." But the calling of the members of this 
Church is not represented by the apostle as the 
effect of their having been chosen, but, on the 
contrary, their election is spoken of as the effect 
of "the sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of 
the truth;" and these, as the effects of the call- 
ing of the Thessalonians by the gospel — "where- 
unto," to which sanctification and faith, "he 
called you by our gospel." Or the whole may 
be considered as the antecedent to the next 
clause, "to which" election from the beginning, 
through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief 
of the truth, "he called you by our gospel." 
Certain it is, that sanctification and belief of the 
truth cannot be the ends of election if they are 
the means of it, as they are here said to be ; and 
we may therefore conclude from this, as well as 
from the other passages we have quoted as speak- 
ing of the personal election of believers, that 
this kind of election is not "unto faith and obe- 
dience," as stated in "The Judgment of the 
Synod of Dort," that is, a choice of individuals 
to be made believers and obedient persons ; but 
an election, as it is expressed both by St. Peter 
and St. Paul, through faith and obedience ; or, 
in other words, a choice of persons already be- 
lieving and obedient into the family of God. 

There are scarcely any other passages in the 
New Testament which speak expressly of per- 
sonal election ; but there is another class of texts 
in which the term election occurs, which refer to 
believers, not distributively, but collectively ; not 
personally, but as a body, either existing as par- 
ticular Churches, or as the universal Church; 
and, by entirely overlooking or ingeniously con- 
founding this obvious distinction, the advocates 
of unconditional personal election bring forward 
such passages with confidence, as proofs of the 
doctrine of election unto faith furnished by the 
word of God. Thus the Synod of Dort quotes, 
as the leading proof of its doctrine of personal 
election, Eph. i. 4, 5, 6, 'According as he hath 
chosen us in him before the foundation of the 
world, that we should be holy and without blame 
before him in love : having predestinated us unto 
the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, to him- 
self, according to the good pleasure of his will, 
to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein 
he hath made us accepted in the beloved." This, 
indeed, is the only passage quoted by the Synod 
of Dort in which the terms chosen and election 
occur ; and we may ask why none of those on 
which we have abovo offered some remarks 
Were quoted also, since the subject of personal 
election is much more obviously contained in 



them than in that which they have adduced? 
The only answer is, that the others were per- 
ceived not to accord with the doctrine of "elec- 
tion unto faith and obedience ;" while this, in 
which the personal election of individual believ- 
ers is not referred to, but the collective election 
of the whole body of Christians, was better 
suited to give a color to their doctrine, because 
it speaks, of course, and as the subject required, 
of election as the means of faith, and of faith as 
the end of election — an order which is reversed 
when the election of individuals, or the election 
of any body of believers, considered distributively 
and. personally, is the subject of the apostle's dis- 
course. If, indeed, the election spoken of in 
this passage were personal election, the Calvin- 
istic doctrine would not follow from it ; because 
it would admit of being questioned, whether the 
choosing in Christ before the foundation of the 
world, here mentioned, was a choice of certain 
persons, as men merely, or as believing men, which 
is surely the most rational. For all choice neces- 
sarily supposes some reason ; but, as men, all 
things were equal between those who, according 
to this scheme, were chosen, and those who were 
passed by. But, according to the Calvinists, this 
election was made arbitrarily, that is, without 
any reason, but that God would have it so ; and 
to this sense they bend the clause in the passage 
under consideration, "according to the good plea- 
sure of his will." This phrase has, however, no 
such arbitrary sense. "The good pleasure of 
his will " means the benevolent and full acquies- 
cence of the will of God with a wise and gracious 
act; and, accordingly, in verse 11, the phrase 
is varied, " after the counsel of his own 
will" — an expression which is at utter variance 
with the repulsive notion that mere will is in 
any case the rule of the Divine conduct, or, in 
other words, that he does any thing merely be- 
cause he will do it, which excludes all "counsel." 
To choose men to salvation considered as be- 
lievers, gives a reason for election which not only 
manifests the wisdom and goodness of God, but has 
the advantage of being entirely consistent with 
his own published and express decree : "He that 
belie veth shall be saved ; and he that believe th 
not shall be damned." This revealed and pro- 
mulgated decree, wo must believe, was according 
to his eternal purpose ; and if from eternity he 
determined that believers, and only believers in 
Christ, among the fallen race, should be saved, 
the conclusion is inevitable that those whom he 
chose in Christ "before the foundation of the 
world," were considered, not as men merely, 
which gives no reason of choice worthy o( any 
rational being, muofc less of the ever blessed 
God; but as believing men, which harmonises 



556 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



the doctrine of election with the other doctrines 
of Scripture, instead of placing it, as in the Cal- 
vinistic scheme, in opposition to them. For the 
choice not being of certain men, as such, but 
of all persons believing ; and all men to whom 
the gospel is preached being called to believe, 
every one may place himself in the number of 
the persons so elected. Thus we get rid of the 
doctrine of the election of a set and determinate 
number of men; and with that, of the fearful 
consequence, the absolute reprobation of all the 
rest, which so few Calvinists themselves have 
the courage to avow and maintain. 

But though this argument might be very suc- 
cessfully urged against those who interpret the 
passage above quoted of personal election, the 
context bears unequivocal proofs that it is not 
of an election or predestination of this kind of 
which the apostle speaks, but of the election of 
believing Jews and Gentiles into the Church of 
God ; in other words, of the eternal purpose of 
God, upon the publication of the gospel, to con- 
stitute his visible Church no longer upon the 
ground of natural descent from Abraham, but 
upon the foundation of faith in Christ. For 
upon no other hypothesis can that distinction 
which the apostle makes between the Jews who 
first believed, and the Gentile Ephesians, who 
afterwards believed, be at all explained. He 
speaks first of the election of Christians in gen- 
eral, whether Jews or Gentiles ; using the pro- 
nouns "us" and "we" as comprehending him- 
self and all others. He then proceeds to the 
"predestination" of those "who first trusted in 
Christ;" plainly meaning himself and other be- 
lieving Jews. He goes on to say, that the Ephe- 
sians were made partakers of the same faith, 
and therefore were the subjects of the same 
election and predestination: "in whom ye also 
trusted after that ye heard the word of truth ;" 
the preaching of which truth to them as Gentiles, 
by the apostle and his coadjutors, was in conse- 
quence of God "having made known unto them 
the mystery of his will, that in the dispensation 
of the fulness of times he might gather together in 
one all things in Christ ;" which, in the next chap- J 
ter, a manifest continuance of the same head of j 
discourse, is explained to mean the calling in of ! 
the Gentiles with the believing Jews, reconciling j 
"both unto God in one body by the cross, having : 
slain the enmity thereby." The same subject he I 
pursues in the third chapter, representing this 
union of believing Jews and Gentiles in one 
Church as the revelation of the mystery which ! 
had been hid "from the beginning of the world ;" | 
but was now manifested "according to the eternal ! 
purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our I 
Lord." Verses 8-11. Here then we have the true I 



meaning of the election and predestination of 
the Ephesians spoken of in the opening of the 
epistle : it was their election, as Gentiles, to be, 
along with the believing Jews, the Church of God, 
his acknowledged people on earth ; which elec- 
tion was, according to God's "eternal purpose," 
to change the constitution of his Church: to 
establish it on the ground of faith in Christ ; 
and thus to extend it into "all nations. So far as 
this respected the Ephesians in general, their 
election to hear the gospel sooner than many 
other Gentiles was unconditional and sovereign, 
and was an election "unto faith and obedience 
of faith;" that is to say, these were the ends of 
that election ; but so far as the Ephesians were 
concerned, as individuals, they were actually 
chosen into the Church of Christ as its vital 
members, on their believing ; and so the election 
to the saving benefits of the gospel was a conse- 
quence of their faith, and not the end of it, and 
was therefore conditional — "In whom ye also 
trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, 
the gospel of your salvation ; in whom also, 
after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that 
Holy Spirit of promise." 

The Calvinistic doctrine of election unto faith 
has no stronger passage than this to lean upon 
for support, and this manifestly fails them ; while 
other passages in which the terms election or 
chosen occur, all favor a very different view of 
the Scripture doctrine. When we are com- 
manded to be diligent "to make our calling and 
election sure," or firm, this supposes that it may 
be rendered nugatory by want of diligence — a 
doctrine which cannot comport with the absolute 
certainty of our salvation, as founded upon a 
decree determining infallibly our personal elec- 
tion to eternal life, and our faith and obedience 
in order to it. When believers are called a 
"chosen generation," they are also called "a 
royal priesthood, a holy nation ;" and if the 
latter characteristics depend upon and are con- 
sequences of faith, so the former depends upon 
a previous faith, and is the consequence of it. 
Finally, although these terms themselves occur 
in but few passages, and in all of them which 
respect the personal experience of individuals 
express, or necessarily imply, the previous con- 
dition of faith, there are many others which, in 
different terms, embody the same doctrine. 
The phrases to be "in Christ," and to be 
"Christ's," are, doubtless, equivalent to the 
personal election of believers ; and these and 
similar modes of expression are constantly oc- 
curring in the New Testament; but no man is 
ever represented as "Christ's," or as "in Christ," 
by an eternal election unto faith, but, on the 
contrary, as entering into that relation which is 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



557 



termed being "in Christ," or being "Christ's" 
through personal faith alone. The Scripture 
knows no such distinctions as elect unbelievers, 
and elect believers ; but all unbelievers are repre- 
sented as "of the world," under "condemna- 
tion," so that "the wrath of God abideth upon 
them," and as liable to eternal ruin. But if 
Calvinistic election be true, then there are elect 
unbelievers ; and, with respect to these, the 
doctrine of Scripture is contradicted; for they 
are not "of the world," though in a state of 
unbelief, since God from eternity "chose them 
out of the world:" they are not under condem- 
nation, "but were justified from eternity ;" "the 
wrath of God does not abide upon them," for 
they are objects of an unchangeable love, which 
has decreed their salvation, subject to no condi- 
tions whatever ; and therefore no state of unbe- 
lief can make them objects of wrath, as no 
condition of faith can make them objects of a 
love which was moved by no such consideration. 
Nor are they liable to ruin. They never were, 
nor can be liable to it : the very threats of God 
are without meaning as to them, and their con- 
sciousness of guilt and danger, under the awa- 
kenings of the Spirit, are deceptious and unreal, 
contradicting the work of the Spirit in the heart 
of man, as the Spirit of truth. For, if he 
"convinces them of sin," he convinces them of 
danger; but they are, in fact, in no danger; and 
the monstrous conclusion follows, inevitably, that 
the Spirit is employed in exciting fears which 
have no foundation. 

We have thus considered the scriptural doc- 
trine of election ; and as we find nothing in it 
which can warrant any one to limit the meaning 
of the texts we have adduced to prove that 
Christ made an actual atonement for the sins of 
all mankind, we may proceed to examine another 
class of Scripture proofs quoted by Calvinists to 
strengthen their argument — those which speak 
of the "calling" and "predestination" of believers. 

The terms "to call," "called," and "calling," 
very frequently occur in the New Testament, 
and especially in the epistles. Sometimes "to 
call" signifies to invite to the blessings of the gos- 
pel, to offer salvation through Christ, either by 
God himself, or, under his appointment, by his 
servants ; and in the parable of the marriage of 
the king's son, Matt. xxii. 1-14, which appears 
to have given rise to many instances of the use 
of this term in the opistles, wo have three de- 
scriptions of "called" or invited persons. First, 
the disobedient who would not come in at the 
call, but made light of it. Second, the class of 
persons represented by the man who, when the 
king came in to sec his guests, had not on the 
Wedding garment; and with respect to whom 



our Lord makes the general remark: "For 
many are called, but few are chosen." The 
persons thus represented by this individual cul- 
prit were not only "called," but actually came 
into the company. Third, the approved guests 
— those who were both called and chosen. As 
far as the simple calling or invitation is con- 
cerned, all these three classes stand upon equal 
ground : all were invited ; and it depended upon 
their choice and conduct whether they embraced 
the invitation, and were admitted as guests. We 
have nothing here to countenance the Calvinistic 
fiction, which is termed "effectual calling." 
This implies an irresistible influence exerted 
upon all the approved guests, but withheld from 
the disobedient, who could not, therefore, be 
otherwise than disobedient; or, at most, could 
only come in without that wedding garment, 
which it was never put into their power to take 
out of the king's wardrobe : the want of which 
would necessarily exclude them, if not from the 
Church on earth, yet from the Church in heaven. 
The doctrine of the parable is in entire contra- 
diction to this ; for they who refused, and they 
who complied but partially with the calling, are 
represented not merely as being left without the 
benefit of the feast, but as incurring additional 
guilt and condemnation for refusing the invita- 
tion. It is to this offer of salvation by the gos- 
pel, this invitation to spiritual and eternal bene- 
fits, that St. Peter appears to refer when he 
says, Acts ii. 39 : "For the promise is unto you, 
and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call :." 
a passage which, we may observe in passing, 
declares "the promise" to be as extensive as the 
"calling;" in other words, as the offer or invita- 
tion. To this also St. Paul refers, Rom. i. 5, 6 : 
"By whom we have received grace and apostle- 
ship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, 
for his name;" that is, to publish his gospel, in 
order to bring all nations to the obedience of 
faith: "Among whom are ye also the called 
of Jesus Christ:" you at Rome have heard the 
gospel, and have been invited to salvation in 
consequence of this design. This promulgation 
of the gospel by the ministry of the apostle 
personally, under the name of calling, is also 
referred to in Galatians i. 6 : "I marvel that ye 
are so soon removed from him that called you 
into the grace of Christ" — obviously meaning 
that it was the apostle himself who had called 
them by his preaching to the grace of Christ — 
"unto another gospel." So also in chap. v. L3; 
"For, brethren, ye have been vailed unto liberty.'' 
Again, 1 Thcss. ii. 12: "That ye would walk 
worthy of God, who hath CALLED you [invited 
you] unto his kingdom and glory." 



558 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



In our Lord's parable it will also be observed 
that the persons called are not invited, as sepa- 
rate individuals, to partake of solitary blessings ; 
but they are called to "a feast," into a company 
or society, before whom the banquet is spread. 
The full revelation of the transfer of the visible 
Church of Christ, from Jews by birth to believers 
of all nations, was not, however, then made. 
"When this branch of the evangelic system was 
fully revealed to the apostles, and taught by 
them to others, that part of our Lord's parable 
which was not at first developed was more par- 
ticularly inculcated by his inspired followers. 
The calling of guests to the evangelical feast, 
we now more fully learn, was not the mere call- 
ing of men to partake of spiritual benefits, but 
calling them also to form a spiritual society 
composed of Jews and Gentiles, the believing 
men of all nations — to have a common fellowship 
in these blessings, and to be formed into this 
fellowship for the purpose of increasing their 
number, and diffusing the benefits of salvation 
among the people or nation to which they re- 
spectively belonged. The invitation, "the call- 
ing" of the first preachers, was to all who heard 
them in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, in all 
other places; and those who embraced it, and 
joined themselves to the Church by faith, bap- 
tism, and continued public profession, were 
named especially and eminently "the called," 
because of their obedience to the invitation. 
They not only put in their claim to the blessings 
of Christianity individually, but became mem- 
bers of the new Church, that spiritual society 
of believers which God now visibly owned as his 
people. As they were thus called into a common 
fellowship by the gospel, this is sometimes termed 
their "vocation:" as the object of this Church 
state was to promote "holiness," it is termed a 
"holy calling:" as sanctity was required of the 
members, they are said to have been "called to 
be saints:" as the final result was, through the 
mercy of God, to be eternal life, we hear of "the 
hope of their calling," and of their being "called 
unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus." 

These views will abundantly explain the va- 
rious passages in which the term "calling" occurs 
in the epistles — Rom. ix. 24: "Even us whom 
he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also 
of the Gentiles ;" that is, whom he hath made 
members of his Church through faith. 1 Cor. i. 
24: "But unto them which are called, both 
Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and 
the wisdom of God:" the wisdom and efficacy 
of the gospel being, of course, acknowledged in 
their very profession of Christ, in opposition to 
those to whom the preaching of "Christ cruci- 
fied" was "a stumbling-block" and "foolishness." 



[part II. 

1 Cor. vii. 18: "Is any man called" — brought 
to acknowledge Christ, and to become a member 
of his Church— "being circumcised, let him not 
become uncircumcised : is any called in uncir- 
cumcision, let him not be circumcised." Eph. 
! iv. 1-4: "That ye walk worthy of the vocation 
wherewith ye are called. There is one body, and 
one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of 
your calling." 1 Thess. ii. 12 : " That ye would 
walk worthy of God, who hath called you to 
his kingdom and glory." 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14: 
"Through sanctification of the Spirit and belief 
of the truth, whereunto he called you by our 
gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord 
Jesus Christ," 2 Tim. i. 9, 10: "Who hath 
saved us and called us with a holy calling : not 
according to our works, but according to his own 
purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ 
Jesus, before the world began ; but is now made 
manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus 
Christ:" on which passage we may remark that the 
object of the "calling," and the "purpose," men- 
tioned in it, must of necessity be interpreted to 
mean the establishment of the Church on the princi- 
ple of faith, and not, as formerly, on natural de- 
scent. For personal election, and a purpose of effec- 
tual personal calling, could not have been hidden 
till manifested by the appearing of Christ, since 
every instance of true conversion to God, in any 
age prior to the appearing of Christ, would be 
as much a manifestation of eternal election, and 
an instance of personal effectual calling, accord- 
ing to the Calvinistic scheme, as it was after the 
appearance of Christ. The apostle is speaking 
of a purpose of God, which was kept secret till 
revealed by the Christian system; and, from 
various other parallel passages, we learn that 
this secret— this "mystery," as he often calls it 
— was the union of the Jews and Gentiles in 
"one body," or Church, by faith. 

In none of these passages is the doctrine of the 
exclusive calling of any set number of men con- 
tained ; and the Synod of Dort, as though they 
felt this, only attempt to reason the doctrine from 
a text not yet quoted, but which we will now 
examine. It is Rom. viii. 30: "Whom he did 
predestinate, them he also called; and whom he 
called, them he also justified ; and whom he jus- 
fied, them he also glorified." This is the text on 
which Calvinists chiefly rest their doctrine of 
effectual calling; and tracing it, as they say, 
through its steps and links, they conclude that 
a set and determinate number of persons having 
been predestinated unto salvation, this set num- 
ber only are called effectually, then justified, and 
finally glorified. The words of the Synod of 
Dort are, "He hath chosen a set number of cer- 
tain men, neither better nor more worthy than 



CH. XXVI.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



559 



i 



others, but lying in the common miseiy with 
others, to salvation in Christ, whom he had also 
appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, 
and the foundation of salvation from all eternity ; 
and so he decreed to give them to him to be 
saved ; and effectually to call and draw them to 
a communion with him, by his word and Spirit ; 
or to give them a true faith in him ; to justify, 
sanctify, and finally glorify them; having been 
kept in the communion of his Son, to the demon- 
stration of his mercy, and the praise of the riches 
of his glorious grace." 1 

The text under consideration is added by the 
synod, in proof of the doctrine of this article; 
but it was evidently nothing to the purpose, un- 
less it had spoken of a set and determinate num- 
ber of men as predestinated and called, inde- 
pendent of any consideration of their faith and 
obedience ; which number, as being determinate, 
would, by consequence, exclude the rest. As 
these are points on which the text is at least 
silent, there is nothing in it unfriendly to those 
arguments founded on explicit texts of holy 
writ, which have been already urged against this 
view of election; and with this notion of elec- 
tion is refuted, also, the cognate doctrine of 
effectual calling, considered as a work of God in 
the heart, of which the elect only can be the 
subjects. But the passage, having been pressed 
into so alien a service, deserves consideration; 
and it will be found that it indeed speaks of the 
privileges and hopes of true believers ; but not 
of those privileges and hopes as secured to them 
by any such decree of election as the synod has 
advocated. To prove this, we remark : 1. That 
the chapter in which the text is found, is the 
lofty and animating conclusion of St. Paul's argu- 
ment on justification by faith : it is a discourse 
of that present state of pardon and sanctity, 
and of that future hope of felicity, into which jus- 
tification introduces believers, notwithstanding 
those sufferings and persecutions of the present 
life to which those to whom he wrote were ex- 
posed, and under which they had need of encour- 
agement. It was, obviously, not in his design 
here to speak of the doctrines of election and 
non-election, however these doctrines may be 
understood. There is nothing in the course of 
his argument which leads to them; and those 
who make use of the text in question for this 
purpose are obliged, therefore, to press it, by 
circuitous inference, into their service. 

2. As the passage stands in intimate connec- 
tion with an important and elucidatory context, 
it ought not to be considered as insulated and 



1 Sententia do Divina Praidcst. Art. 7. 
tio imniutabilo Dei pronositum, etc. 



Est autom Eleo 



complete in itself; which has been the great 
source of erroneous interpretations. Under the 
sufferings of the present time, the apostle en- 
courages those who had believed with the hope 
of a glorious resurrection: this forms the sub- 
ject of his consolatory remarks from verse 17 to 
25. The assistance and "intercession" of the 
Spirit; and the working of "all things together 
for good to them that love God, to them who 
are the called according to his purpose" — clearly 
meaning those who, according to the Divine de- 
sign, had received and embraced the gospel in 
truth — form two additional topics of consolatory 
suggestion. The passage under consideration 
immediately follows, and is in full, for the synod 
has quoted it short: "And we know that all things 
work together for good to them that love God, to 
them who are the called [who are called] accord- 
ing to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, 
he also did predestinate to be conformed to the 
image of his Son, that he might be the first- 
born among many brethren. Moreover, whom 
he did predestinate, them he also called; and 
whom he called, them he also justified; and 
whom he justified, them he also glorified." The 
connection is here manifest. " The sufferings of 
this present time" could only work together for 
the good of them that "love God," by being 
connected with and compensated in a future 
state by a glorious resurrection from the dead ; 
and therefore the apostle shows that this was the 
design of God, the ultimate and triumphant re- 
sult of the administration of his grace, that 
they who love God here should be conformed to 
the image of his Son, in his glorified state, that 
he might be "the first-born among brethren;" 
the head and chief of the redeemed, who shall 
be acknowledged as his "brethren," and co- 
heirs of his glory. Thus the whole of the 29th 
verse is a reason given to show why " all things," 
however painful in the present life, " work toge- 
gether for good to them that love God;" and it 
is therefore introduced by the connective particle, 
on, which has here, obviously, a causal signifi- 
cation, "for (because) whom he did foreknow, 
he also did predestinate." 

3. The apostle is here speaking, we grant, 
not of the foreknowledge or predestination of 
bodies of men to Church privileges, but of the 
experience of believers, taken ddstributively and 
personally. This will, however, be found to 
strengthen our argument against the use made 
of the latter part of the passage by the Synod of 
Dort. 

It is affirmed of believers that they were 
"foreknoivn." This term may be taken in the 
sense of foreapproved. For not only is it oom- 
mon with the sacred writers to express approval 



560 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



by the phrase "to know" — of which Hebraism 
the instances are many in the New Testament — 
but in Rom. xi. 2, "to foreknow," is best inter- 
preted into this meaning: "God hath not cast 
away his people which he foreknew." It is 
not of the whole people of Israel of which the 
apostle here speaks, as the context shows ; but 
of the believing part of them, called subse- 
quently "the remnant according to the election 
of grace;" a clause which has been before ex- 
plained. The question put by the apostle into 
the mouth of an objecting Jew is, "Hath God 
cast away his people ?" This is denied ; but the 
illustration taken from the reservation of seven 
thousand men, in the time of Elijah, who had 
not bowed the knee to Baal, proves that St. 
Paul meant to say that God had cast off from 
being members of his Church, all but the rem- 
nant; all but his people whom he "foreknew ;" 
those who had laid aside the inveterate pre- 
judices of their nation, and had entered into 
the new Christian Church by faith. These he 
foreknew, that is, approved ; and so received 
them into his Church. In this sense of the 
term foreknew, the text in question harmonizes 
well with the context. "All things work toge- 
gether for good to them that love God," etc. 
"For whom he did foreknow," (approve as 
lovers of him,) "he predestinated to be con- 
formed to the image of his Son," in mind and 
temper here, and especially in glory hereafter. 

The second sense of foreknowing is that of 
simple prescience ; and if any prefer this, we 
shall not dispute with him, since it will come to 
the same issue. The foreknowledge of men 
must have respect either simply to their exist- 
ence as persons, or as existing under some par- 
ticular circumstances and characters. If per- 
sons only be the objects of this foreknowledge, 
then has God's prescience no more to do with the 
salvation of the elect than of the non-elect, 
since all are equally foreknown as persons in a 
state of existence ; and we might as well argue 
the glorification of the reprobate from God's fore- 
knowing them, in this sense, as that of the elect. 
The objects of this foreknowledge, then, must 
be men under certain circumstances and char- 
acters — not in their simple existence as rational 
beings. If, therefore, the term "foreknow," 
in the passage above cited, "God hath not cast 
away his people whom he foreknew" be taken 
in the sense of prescience, those of the general 
mass of Jews, who were not "cast away," 
were foreknown under some circumstance and 
character which distinguished them from the 
others : and what this was is made sufficiently 
plain from the context — the persons foreknown 
were the then believing part of the Jews : "Even 



[part II. 

so then, at this present time also, there is a rem- 
nant according to the election of grace." Equally 
clear are the circumstances and character under 
which, more generally, the apostle represents 
believers as having been foreknown in the text 
j more immediately under examination. Those 
j "whom he did foreknow," are manifestly the 
| believers of whom he speaks in the discourse ; 
and who are called in chap. viii. 28, " Them 
that love God." Under some character he must 
have foreknown them, or his foreknowledge of 
them would not be special and distinctive; it 
would afford no ground from which to argue any 
thing respecting them ; it could make no differ- 
ence between them and others. This specific 
character is given by the apostle ; but it is not 
that which is gratuitously assumed by the Synod 
j of Dort, a selection of them from the mass, with- 
i out respect to their faith. It is their faith itself; 
I for of believers only is St. Paul speaking as the 
j subjects of this foreknowledge ; and such be- 
j lievers, too, as "love God," and who, having 
I actually embraced the heavenly invitation, are 
j emphatically said to be, as before explained, 
j "called according to his purpose." 

To predestinate, or to determine beforehand, 
is the next term in the text ; but here it is also 
to be remarked, that the persons predestinated, 
or before determined to be glorified with Christ, 
are the same persons, under the same circum- 
stances and character, as those who are said to 
have been foreknown of God ; and what has 
been said under the former term, applies, there- 
fore, in part, to this. The subjects of predesti- 
nation are the persons foreknown, and the per- 
sons foreknown are true believers ; foreknown 
as such, or they could not have been specially or 
distinctively foreknown, according to the doctrine 
of the apostle. This predestination, then, is not 
of persons "unto faith and obedience," but of 
believing and obedient persons unto eternal 
glory. Nor are faith and obedience mentioned 
anywhere as the end of predestination, except 
in Ephesians, chap, i., where we have already 
proved, when treating of election, that the pre- 
destination spoken of in that chapter is the 
eternal purpose of God to choose the Gentile 
Ephesians into his Church, along with the be- 
lieving Jews ; and that what is there said is not 
intended of personal but of collective election 
and predestination, and that to the means and 
ordinances of salvation. For the argument by 
which this is established, let the reader, to pre- ■ 
vent repetition, turn back. 

The passage before us, then, declares that true 
believers were foreknown and predestinated to 
eternal glory ; and when the apostle adds, "More- 
over, whom he did predestinate, them he also 



en. xxvi.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



5G1 



called ; and -whom he called, them he also justi- 
fied ; and whom he justified, them he also glori- 
fied:" he shows in particular how the Divine 
purpose to glorify believers is carried into effect, 
through all its stages. The great instrument of 
bringing men to "love God" is the gospel: they 
are therefore called, invited by it, to this state 
and benefit: the calling being obeyed, they are 
justified ; and being justified, and continuing in 
that state of grace, they are glorified. This 
is the plain and obvious course of the amplifica- 
tion pursued by the apostle; but let us re- 
mark how many unscriptural notions the Synod 
of Dort engrafts upon it. First, a " certain 
number" of persons, not as believers but as mew, 
are foreknown : then a decree of predestination 
to eternal life goes forth in their favor ; but still 
without respect to them as believing men as the 
subjects of that decree: then, we suppose, by 
another decree, (for the first cannot look at quali- 
ties at all,) and by a second predestination, they 
are to be made believers : then they are exclu- 
sively "called:" then infallibly justified; and 
being justified, are infallibly glorified. In op- 
position to these notions, we have already shown 
that the persons spoken of are foreknown and 
predestinated as believers, not as men or per- 
sons; and we may also oppose scriptural objec- 
tions to every other part of the interpretation. 

As to calling, we allow that all of whom the 
apostle speaks are necessarily " called ;" for 
since he is discoursing of the predestination of 
believers in Christ to eternal glory, and does not 
touch the question of the salvation, or otherwise, 
of those who have not the means of becoming 
such, the calling of the gospel is necessarily sup- 
posed, as it is only upon that Divine system be- 
ing proposed to their faith that they could become 
believers in Christ. But though all such as the 
apostle speaks of are " called," they are not the 
only persons called : on the contrary, our Lord 
declares that "many are called, but few chosen." 
To confine the calling here spoken of to those 
who are actually saved, it was necessary to in- 
vent the fiction of "effectual calling," which is 
made peculiar to the elect; but calling is the in- 
vitation, and offer, and publication of the gospel : 
a bringing men into a state of Christian privilege 
to be improved unto salvation, and not an opera- 
tion in them. Effectual invitation, effectual of- 
fer, and effectual publication, are turns of the 
phrase which sufficiently expose the delusiveness 
of their comment. By effectual calling, they 
mean an inward compelling of the mind to em- 
brace the outward invitation of the gospel, and 
to yield to the inward solicitations of the Spirit 
which accompanies it; but this, whether true or 
false, is a totally different tiling from all that the 
30 



New Testament terms "calling.''' It is true that 
some embrace the call and others reject it, yet 
is there in the " calling" of the Scripture nothing 
exclusively appropriate to those who are finally 
saved; and though the apostle supposes those 
whom he speaks of in the text as "called," to 
have been obedient, he confines not the calling 
itself to them so as to exclude others — still 
" many are called." Nor is the Synod more 
sound in assuming that all who are called are 
"justified." If "many are called, and few 
chosen," this assumption is unfounded; nay, all 
compliances with the call do not issue in justifi- 
cation ; for the man who not only heard the call, 
but came in to the feast, put not on the wedding 
garment, and was therefore finally cast out. 
Equally contradictory to the Scripture is it so to 
explain St. Paul here as to make him say that 
all who are justified are also glorified. The justi- 
fied are glorified ; but not, as we have seen from 
various texts of Scripture already, all who are 
justified. For if we have established it that the 
persons who "draw backxm to perdition;" "make 
shipwreck of faith&nd put away & good conscience;" 
who turn out of the "way of righteousness ;" who 
forget that they were "purged from their old 
sins;" who "were made partakers of the Holy 
Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, 
and the powers of the world to come;" and were 
"sanctified" with the blood they afterwards 
"counted an unholy thing;" are represented by 
the apostles to have been in a state of grace and 
acceptance with God, through Christ, then all 
persons justified are not infallibly glorified; but 
only such are saved as "endure to the end;" 
and they only receive that "crown of life" who 
are "faithful unto death." 

The clear reason why the apostle, having 
stated that true believers were foreknown and 
predestinated, introduces also the order and me- 
thod of their salvation, was to connect that sal- 
vation with the gospel, and the work of , Christ ; 
and to secure to him the glory of it. The gospel 
reveals it, that those who "love God" shall find 
that "all things work together for their good," 
because (on) they are "predestinated to be con- 
formed to the image of the Son of God," in his 
glory ; yet the gospel did not find them lovers of 
God, but made them so. Since, therefore, none 
but such persons were so foreknown and predes- 
tinated to be heirs of gloi-y, the gospel calling 
was issued according to "his purpose," or plan 
of bringing them that love him to glory, in order 
to produce this love in them. "Whom" he thus 
called, assuming them to bo obedient to the eall. 
he justified; "and whom ho justified," assum- 
ing them to be faithful unto death, he "gjorified." 
But since the persons predestinated were con- 



562 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



templated as believers, not as a certain number 
of persons, then all to whom the invitation was 
issued might obey that call, and all might be 
justified, and all glorified. In other words, all 
who heard the gospel might, through it, be 
brought to love God ; and might take their places 
among those who were " predestinated to be con- 
formed to the image of his Son." For since the 
predestination, as we have seen, was not of a 
certain number of persons, but of all believers who 
love God ; then, either it must be allowed that 
all who were called by the gospel might take the 
character and circumstances which would bring 
them under the predestination mentioned by the 
apostle, or else those who deny this are bound to 
the conclusion that God calls (invites) many 
whom he never intends to admit to the celestial 
feast ; and not only so, but punishes them, with 
the severity of a relentless displeasure, for not 
obeying an invitation which he never designed 
them to accept, and which they never had the 
power to accept. In other words, the interpreta- 
tion of this passage by the Synod of Dort obliges 
all who follow it to admit all the consequences 
connected with the doctrine of reprobation, as 
before stated. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

an examination of certain passages of scrip- 
ture, supposed to limit the extent of 
Christ's redemption. 

Having now shown that those passages of holy 
writ in which the terms election, calling, pre- 
destination, and foreknowledge occur, do not 
warrant those inferences by which Calvinists at- 
tempt to restrain the signification of those de- 
clarations with respect to the extent of the 
benefit of Christ's death which are expressed in 
terms so universal in the New Testament, we 
may conclude our investigation of the sense of 
Scripture on this point by adverting to some of 
those insulated texts which are most frequently 
adduced to support the same conclusion. 

John vi. 37: "All that the Father giveth me 
shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me I 
will in no wise cast out." 

It is inferred from this, and some similar pas- 
sages in the Gospels, that, by a transaction be- 
tween the Father and the Son, a certain number 
of persons, called " the elect," were given to 
Christ, and in process of time "drawn" to him 
by the Father ; and that as none can be saved 
but those thus " given" to him, and " drawn" by 
the Father, the doctrine of "distinguishing 
grace" is established ; and the rest of mankind, 



[part n. 

not having been given by the Father to the Son, 
can have no saving participation in the benefits 
of a redemption which did not extend to them. 
This fiction has often been defended with much 
ingenuity ; but it remains a fiction still, unsup- 
ported by any good interpretation of the texts 
which have been assumed as its foundation. 

1. The first objection to the view usually taken 
by Calvinists of this text is that in the case of 
the perverse Jews, with whom the discourse of 
Christ was held, it places the reason of their not 
"coming" to Christ in their not having been 
"given" to him by the Father; whereas our 
Lord, on the contrary, places it in themselves, 
and shows that he considered their case to be in 
their own hands by his inviting them to come to 
him, and reproving them because they would not 
come. "Ye have not his word (the word of the 
Father) abiding in you ; for whom he hath sent, 
him ye believe not." John v. 38. "And ye will not 
come to me that ye might have life." Verse 40. 
"How can ye believe, which receive honor one 
of another?" Verse 44. "For had ye believed 
Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote 
of me." Verse 46. Now these statements can- 
not stand together ; for if the true reason why 
the perverse Jews did not believe in our Lord 
was that they had not been given to him of the 
Father, then it lay not in themselves ; but if the 
reason was that "his word did not abide in 
them;" that they "would not come to him;" that 
they sought worldly "honor;" finally, that they 
believed not Moses's writings ; then it is alto- 
gether contradictory to these declarations to place 
it in an act of God, to which it is not attributed 
in any part of the discourse. 

2. To be "given" by the Father to Christ is a 
phrase abundantly explained in the context, 
which this class of interpreters generally over- 
look. 

It had a special application to those pious 
Jews who "looked for redemption in Jerusa- 
lem :" those who read and believed the writings 
of Moses, (a general term it would seem for the 
Old Testament Scriptures,) and who were thus 
prepared, by more spiritual views than the rest, 
though they were not unmixed with obscurity, 
to receive Christ as the Messiah. Of this de- 
scription were Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, 
Lazarus and his sisters, and many others. Philip 
says to Nathanael, "We have found him of whom 
3Ioses in the law and the prophets did write;" and 
Nathanael was manifestly a pious Jew ; for our 
Lord said of him, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in 
whom is no guile." The light which such honest 
inquirers into the meaning of the Scriptures ob- 
tained as to the import of their testimony con- 
cerning the Messiah, and the character and 



CH. XXVII.] 

claims of Jesus, is expressly attributed to the 
teaching and revelation of " the Father." So, 
after Peter's confession, our Lord exclaimed, 
" Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah, for flesh 
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but 
my Father which is in heaven." This teaching, 
and its influence upon the mine], is, in John vi. 
44, called the "drawing" of the Father: "No 
man can come to me, except the Father draw 
him;" for that u to draw" and "to teach" mean 
i the same thing is evident, since our Lord imme- 
diately adds, " It is written in the prophets, And 
they shall be all taught of God;" and then sub- 
joins this exegetical observation: "Every man, 
therefore, that hath heard and hath learned of the 
Father, cometh unto me." Those who truly " be- 
lieved" Moses's words, then, were under the Fa- 
ther's illuminating influence, "heard and learned 
of the Father;" were "drawn" of the Father; 
and so, by the Father, were "given to Christ," 
as his disciples, to be more fully taught the mys- 
teries of his religion, and to be made the saving 
partakers of its benefits : for " this is the Father's 
will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath 
given me [thus to perfect in knowledge, and to 
exalt in holiness] I should lose nothing ; but 
should raise it up again at the last day." Thus 
we have exhibited that beautiful process in the 
work of God in the hearts of sincere Jews, which 
took place in their transit from one dispensation 
to another, from Moses to Christ. Taught of 
the Father ; led into the sincere belief and gene- 
ral spiritual understanding of the Scriptures as 
to the Messiah ; when Christ appeared, they were 
"drawn" and " given" to him, as the now visible 
and accredited Head, Teacher, Lord, and Saviour 
of the Church. All in this view is natural, ex- 
plicit, and supported by the context : all in the 
Calvinistic interpretation appears forced, obscure, 
and inapplicable to the whole tenor of the dis- 
course. For to what end of edification of any 
kind were the Jews told that none but a certain 
number, elected from eternity, and given to him 
before the world was by the Father, should come 
to him; and that they to whom he was then 
speaking were not of that number ? But the co- 
herence of the discourse is manifest when, in 
these sermons of our Lord, they were told that 
their not coming to Christ was the proof of their 
unbelief in Moses's writings ; that they were not 
" taught of God ;" that they had neither "heard 
nor learned of the Father," whom they yet pro- 
fessed to worship and seek ; and that, as the 
hindrance to their coming to Christ was in the 
state of their hearts, it was remcdiablo by a 
diligent and honest search of the Scriptures, 
and by listening to the teachings of God. To 
this very class of Jews our Lord, in this same 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



5G3 



discourse, says, "Search the Scriptures;" but to 
what end were they to do this if, in the Calvin- 
istic sense, they were not given to him of the 
Father ? The text in question, then, thus opened 
by a reference to the whole discourse, is of ob- 
vious meaning. "All that the Father giveth me 
after this preparing teaching shall or will come 
to me ; (for it is simply the future tense of the 
indicative mood which is used ; and no notion of 
irresistible influence is conveyed ;) and him that 
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." The 
latter clause is added to show the perfect har- 
mony of design between Christ and the Father, 
a point often adverted to in this discourse ; for 
"I came down from heaven, not to do mine own 
will, but the will of him that sent me." Whom, 
therefore, the Father so gives, I receive : I enter 
upon my assigned office, and shall be faithful to 
it. In reference also to the work of God in the 
hearts of men in general, as well as to the honest 
and inqiiiring Jews of our Lord's day, these pas- 
sages have a clear and interesting application. 
The work of the Father is carried on by his con- 
vincing and teaching Spirit; but that Spirit 
"testifies" of Christ, "leads" to Christ, and 
"gives" to Christ, that we may receive the full 
benefit of his sacrifice and salvation, and be 
placed in the Church of which he is the Head. 
But in this there is no exclusion. That which 
hinders others from coming to Christ is that 
which hinders them from being " drawn" of the 
Father; from "hearing and learning" of the 
Father, in his holy word, and by his Spirit; 
which hindrance is the moral state of the heart, 
not any exclusive decree — not the want of teach- 
ing or drawing, but, as it is compendiously ex- 
pressed in Scripture, a "resisting of the Holy 
Ghost." 

Matt. xx. 15, 16: "Is it not lawful for me to 
do what I will with mine own ? Is thine eye evil 
because I am good ? So the last shall be first, 
and the first last ; for many are called, but few 
chosen." 

This passage has been often urged in proof of 
the doctrine of unconditional election ; and the 
argument raised upon it is, that God has a right 
to dispense grace and glory to whom he will, on 
a principle of pure sovereignty ; and to leave 
others to perish in their sins. That the passage 
has no relation to this doctrine, needs no other 
proof than that it is the conclusion of the para- 
ble of the laborers in the vineyard. The house- 
holder gives to them that "wrought but one 
hour" an equal reward to that bestowed upon 
those who had labored through the twelve. The 
latter received the full prioe oi % the day's labor 
agreed upon; and the former were made sub- 
jects of a special and sovereign dispensation of 



564 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



grace. The exercise of the Divine sovereignty, 
in bestowing degrees of grace, or reward, is the 
subject of the parable, and no one disputes it; 
but, according to the Calvinistic interpretation, 
no grace at all, no reward, is bestowed upon the 
non-elect, who are, moreover, punished for reject- 
ing a grace never offered. The absurdity of such 
a use of the parable is obvious. It relates to no 
such subject; for its moral manifestly relates to 
the reception of great offenders, and especially 
of the Gentiles, into the favor of Christ, and the 
abundant rewards of heaven. 

2 Timothy ii. 19: "Nevertheless the founda- 
tion of God standeth sure, having this seal, The 
Lord knoweth them that are his ; and, Let every 
one that nameth the name of Christ depart from 
iniquity." 

The apostle, in this chapter, is speaking of 
those ancient heretics who affirmed "that the 
resurrection is passed already, and overthrew the 
faith of some." What then? The truth itself 
is not overthrown : the foundation of God stand- 
eth sure, having this seal, or inscription, "The 
Lord knoweth," or approveth, or, if it please 
better, distinguishes and acknowledges, "them 
that are his ;" and, "Let every one that nameth 
the name of Christ depart from iniquity ;" which 
is as much as to say that none are truly "the 
Lord's" who do not depart from iniquity; and 
that those whose faith is " overthrown" by the in- 
fluence of corrupt principles and manners, are no 
longer accounted "his:" all which is perfectly 
congruous with the opinions of those who hold 
the unrestricted extent of the death of Christ. 
Toward the Calvinistic doctrine, this text cer- 
tainly bears no friendly aspect ; for surely it was 
of little consequence to any to have their "faith 
overthrown," if that faith never was, nor could 
be, connected with salvation. 

John x. 26: -"But ye believe not, because ye 
are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." 

The argument here is, that the cause of the 
unbelief of the persons addressed was, that they 
were not of the number given to Christ by the 
Father, from eternity, to the exclusion of all 
others. 1 Let it, however, be observed, that in 
direct opposition to this, men are called the sheep 
of Christ by our Lord himself, not with reference 
to any supposed transaction between the Father 
and the Son in eternity, which is never even 
hinted at, but because of their qualities and acts. 
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them; 
and they follow me." "A stranger will they not 

1 " The true reason why they did not believe was, the 
want of that simple, teachable, and inoffensive temper, 
which characterized his sheep ; for not being of that cho- 
sen remnant, they were left to the pride and enmity of their 
carnal hearts." (Scott's Com.) 



[PART II. 

follotv." Why then did not the Jews believe ? 
Because they had not the qualities of Christ's 
sheep : they were neither discriminating as to 
the voice of the shepherd, nor obedient to it. 
The usual Calvinistic interpretation brings in 
our Lord, in this instance, as teaching the Jews 
that the reason why they did not believe on him 
was that they could not believe ! for, as Mr. 
Scott says in the note below, "not being of that 
chosen remnant, they were left to the pride and 
enmity of their carnal hearts." This was not 
likely to be very edifying to them. But the words 
of our Lord are manifestly words of reproof, 
grounded not upon acts of God, but upon acts of 
their own ; and they are parallel to the passages — 
" If God were your Father, ye would love me," 
chap. viii. 42. "Every one that is of the truth 
heareth my voice," xviii. 37. "How can ye be- 
lieve, which receive honor one of another ?" v. 44. 
John xiii. 18 : "I speak not of you all : I know 
whom I have chosen ; but that the Scripture may 
be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath 
lifted up his heel against me." 

"He perfectly knew," says Mr. Scott on the 
passage, "what persons he had chosen, as well 
as which of them were chosen unto salvation." 
This is surely making our Lord utter a very un- 
meaning truism ; for as he chose the apostles, so 
he must have "known" that he chose them. Dr. 
Whitby's interpretation is, therefore, to be taken 
in preference: "I know the temper and dispo- 
sition of those whom I have chosen, and what I 
may expect from every one of them ; for which 
cause I said, 'Ye are not all clean;' but God in 
his wisdom hath permitted this, that as Ahitho- 
phel betrayed David, though he was his familiar 
friend, so Judas, my familiar at my table, might 
betray the Son of God ; and so the words re- 
corded, Psalm xli. 9, might be fulfilled in him 
also of whom King David was the type." (Notes 
in loc.) Certainly Judas was "chosen," as well 
as the rest. ' ' Have not I chosen you twelve, and 
one of you is a devil?" nor have we any reason 
to conclude that Christ uses the term chosen dif- 
ferently in the two passages. When, therefore, 
our Lord says, " I know whom I have chosen," 
! the term Ttnoio must be taken in the sense of dis- 
criminating character. 

John xv. 16: "Ye have not chosen me, but I 
1 have chosen you, and ordained you that ye should 
| go and bring forth fruit." Mr. Scott, whom, as 
being a modern Calvinistic commentator, we 
rather choose again to quote, interprets: "cho- 
sen them unto salvation." In its proper sense, 
we make no objection to this phrase: it is 
a scriptural one ; but it must be taken in its 
own connection. Here, however, either the term 
"chosen" is to be understood with reference to 



CH. XXVII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



the apostolic office, which is very agreeable to the 
context ; or if it relate to the salvation of the 
disciples, it can have no respect to the doctrine 
of eternal election. For if the election spoken 
of were not an act done in time, it would have 
been tmnecessary for our Lord to say, "Ye have 
not chosen me;" because it is obvious they could 
not choose him before they came into being. 
Another passage also, in the same discourse, 
further proves, that the election mentioned was 
an act done in time. " I have chosen you out of 
the world" verse 19. But if they were "chosen 
out of the world," they were chosen subsequently 
to their being "in the world;" and, therefore, 
the election spoken of is not eternal. The last 
observation will also deprive these interpreters 
of another favorite passage, "Those that thou 
gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, 
but the son of perdition." The "giving" here 
mentioned, was no more an act of God in eternity, 
as they pretend, than the "choosing" to which 
we have already referred ; for in the same dis- 
course the apostles are called ' ' the men thou 
gavest me out of the world" and were therefore 
given to Christ in time. The exception as to Ju- 
das, also, proves that this "giving" expresses 
actual discipleship. Judas had been "given" as 
well as the rest, or he could not have been men- 
tioned as an exception ; that is, he had been once 
"found" or he could not have been "lost." 

2 Tim. i. 9, "Who hath saved us, and called us 
with a holy calling, not according to our works, 
but according to his own purpose and grace, 
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the 
world began." 

Mr. Scott here contends for the doctrine of 
the personal election of the persons spoken of, 
"from the beginning, or before eternal ages," 
which is the most literal translation ; and argues 
that this cannot be denied without supposing 
"that all who live and die impenitent may be 
said to be saved, and called with a holy calling, 
because a Saviour was promised from the begin- 
ning of the world." "Indeed," he adds, "the 
purpose of God is mentioned as the reason why 
they, rather than others, were saved and called." 
We shall see the passage in a very different light, 
if we attend to the following considerations. 

"The purpose and grace," or gracious pur- 
pose, "which was given us in Christ Jesus before 
the world began," is represented as having been 
"hid in past ages;" for the apostle immediately 
adds, "but is now made manifest by the appear- 
ing of our Saviour Jesus Christ." It cannot be 
the personal election of believers, therefore, of 
winch the apostle hero speaks ; because it was 
saying nothing to declare that the Divine pur- 
pose to elect them was not manifest in former 



ages, but was reserved to the appearing of 
Christ. Whatever degree of manifestation God's 
purpose of personal election, as to individuals, 
receives, even the Calvinists acknowledge that it 
is made obvious only by the personal moral 
changes which take place in them through their 
"effectual calling," faith, and regeneration. Till 
the individual, therefore, comes into being, God's 
purpose to elect him cannot be manifested ; and 
those who were so elected, but did not live till 
Christ appeared, could not have their election 
manifested before he appeared. Again, if per- 
sonal election be intended in the text, and call- 
ing and conversion are the proofs of personal 
election, then it is not true that the election of 
individuals to eternal life was kept hid until the 
appearing of Christ ; for every true conversion, 
in any former age, was as much a manifestation 
of personal election — that is, of the peculiar 
favor and "distinguishing grace" of God — as it 
is under the gospel. A parallel passage in the 
epistle to the Ephesians, chap. iii. 4-6, will, 
however, explain that before us. "Whereby, 
when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge 
in the mystery of Christ, which, in other ages, 
was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is 
now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets 
by the Spirit — that the Gentiles should be fellow- 
heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of 
his promise in Christ by the gospel;" and in 
verse 11 this is called, in exact conformity to 
the phrase used in the epistle to Timothy, " the 
eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ 
Jesus our Lord." The "purpose," or "gracious 
purpose" — mentioned in both places as formerly 
hidden, but "now manifested" — was, therefore, 
the purpose to form one universal Church of 
believing Jews and Gentiles ; and, in the text 
before us, the apostle, speaking in the name of 
all his fellow-Christians, whether Jews or Gen- 
tiles, says that they were saved and called ac- 
cording to that previous purpose and plan — 
"who hath saved us and called us," etc. The 
reason why the apostle Paul so often refers to 
"this eternal purpose" of God, is to justify and 
confirm his own ministry as a teacher of the 
Gentiles, and an assertor of their equal spiritual 
rights with the Jews ; and that this subject was 
present to his mind when he wrote this passage, 
and not an eternal, personal election, is manifest 
from verse 11, which is a part of the same para- 
graph: "Whcreunto I am appointed a preacher, 
and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." 

"But," says Mr. Scott, "all who live and die 
impenitent may then be said to be 'saved, and 
called with a holy oalling,' because a Saviour 
was promised from the beginning <>t" the world." 
But we do not say that any are saved only be- 



566 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



cause a Saviour was promised from the "begin- 
ning of the world, but that the apostle simply 
affirms that the salvation of believers, whether 
Gentiles or Jews, and the means of that salva- 
tion, were the consequences of God's previous 
purpose, before the world began. All who are 
actually saved may say, "We are saved," accord- 
ing to this purpose ; but if their actual salvation 
shut out the salvation of all others, then no more 
have been saved than those included by the 
apostle in the pronoun "us," which would prove 
too much. But Mr. Scott tells us that "'the 
purpose of God' is mentioned as the reason why 
they, rather than others, were thus saved and 
called." It is mentioned with no such view. 
The purpose of God is introduced by the apostle 
as his authority for making to "the Gentiles" 
the offer of salvation, and as a motive to induce 
Timothy to prosecute the same glorious work, 
after his decease. This is obviously the scope 
of the whole chapter. 

Acts xiii. 48: "And as many as were ordained 
to eternal life believed." Mr. Scott is somewhat 
less confident than some others as to the support 
which the Calvinistic system is thought to derive 
from the word rendered ordained. He, however, 
attempts to leave the impression upon the minds 
of his readers that it means " appointed to eter- 
nal life." 

We may, however, observe, 

1. That the persons here spoken of were the 
Gentiles to whom the apostles preached the gos- 
pel, upon the Jews of the same place "putting 
it from them," and "judging" or proving "them- 
selves unworthy of eternal life." But if the 
only reason why the Gentiles believed was that 
they were "ordained," in the sense of personal 
predestination, "to eternal life," then the reason 
why the Jews believed not was the want of such 
a predestinating act of God, and not, as it is 
affirmed, an act of their own — the putting it 
away from them. 

2. This interpretation supposes that all the 
elect Gentiles at Antioch believed at that time, 
and that no more, at least of full age, remained 
to believe. This is rather difficult to admit; 
and therefore Mr. Scott says: "Though it is 
probable that all who were thus affected, at first, 
did not at that time believe unto salvation, yet 
many did." But this is not according to the 
text, which says expressly: "As many as were 
ordained to eternal life believed;" so that such 
commentators must take this inconvenient cir- 
cumstance along with their interpretation, that 
all the elect at Antioch were, at that moment, 
brought into Christ's Church. 

3. Even some Calvinists, not thinking that it 
is the practice of the apostles and evangelists to 



[PART II. 

lift up the veil of the decrees so high as this 
interpretation supposes, choose to render the 
words: "As many as were determined" or "or- 
dered" for eternal life. 

4. But we may finally observe, that, in no 
place in the New Testament in which the same 
word occurs, is it ever employed to convey the 
meaning of destiny, or predestination — a consi- 
deration which is fatal to the argument which 
has been drawn from it. The following are the 
only instances of its occurrence — Matt, xxviii. 
16: "Then the eleven disciples went away into 
Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had ap- 
pointed them." Here the word means com- 
manded, or, at most, agreed upon beforehand, 
and certainly conveys no idea of destiny. Luke 
vii. 8: "For I also am a man set under autho- 
rity." Here the word means "placed, or dis- 
posed." Acts xv. 2 : " They determined that 
Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem." 
Here it signifies mutual agreement and decision. 
Acts xxii. 10: "Arise, and go into Damascus; 
and there it shall be told thee of all things which 
are appointed for thee to do." Here it means 
committed to, or appointed, in the way of injunc- 
tion, but no idea of destiny is conveyed. Acts 
xxviii. 23 : "And when they had appointed him 
a day" — when they had fixed upon a day by 
mutual agreement ; for St. Paul was not under 
the command or control of the visitors who came 
to him to hear his doctrine. Rom. xiii. 1 : " The 
powers that be are ordained of God;" clearly 
signifying, constituted and ordered. 1 Cor. xvi. 
15: "They have addicted themselves to the 
ministry of the saints." Here it can mean 
nothing else than applied, devoted themselves 
to. Thus, the word never takes the sense of 
predestination ; but, on the contrary, when St. 
Luke wishes to convey that notion, he combines 
it with a preposition, and uses a compound verb: 
"And hath determined the times before appointed." 
This was preordination, and he therefore so terms 
it ; but in the text in question he speaks not of 
preordination, but of ordination simply. The 
word employed signifies "to place, order, ap- 
point, dispose, determine," and is very variously 
applied. The prevalent idea is that of settling, 
ordering, and resolving ; and the meaning of the 
text is, that as many as were fixed and resolved 
upon eternal life, as many as were careful about 
and determined on salvation, believed. For that 
the historian is speaking of the candid and se- 
rious part of the hearers of the apostles, in op- 
position to the blaspheming Jews — that is, of 
those Gentiles "who, when they heard this, were 
glad, and glorified the word of the Lord" — is 
evident from the context. The persons who then 
believed appear to have been under a previous 



CH. XXVII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



567 



preparation for receiving the gospel, and were 
probably religious proselytes associating with 
the Jews. 

Luke x. 20 : " But rather rejoice, because your 
names are written in heaven." The inference 
from this text is, that there is a register of all 
the elect in the "book of life," and that their 
number, according to the doctrine of the Synod 
of Dort, is fixed and determinate. Our Calvin- 
istic friends forget, however, that names may be 
"blotted out of the book of life;" and so the 
theory falls. "And if any man shall take away 
from the words of the book of this prophecy, 
God shall take away his part out of the book of 
life." 

Prov. xvi. 4: " The Lord hath made all things 
for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day 
of evil." If there be any relevance in this pas- 
sage to the Calvinistic theory, it must be taken 
in the supralapsarian sense, that the final cause 
of the creation of the wicked is their eternal 
punishment. It follows from this that sin is not 
the cause of punishment, but that this flows 
from the mere will of God — which is a sufficient 
refutation. The persons spoken of are "wicked." 
Either they were made wicked by themselves, or 
by God. If not by God, then to make the 
wicked for the day of evil can only mean that 
he renders them who have made themselves 
wicked, and remain incorrigibly so, the instru- 
ments of glorifying his justice "in the day of 
evil," that is, in the day of punishment. The 
Hebrew phrase, rendered literally, is: "The 
Lord doth work all things for himself;" which 
applies as well to acts of government as to acts 
of creation. Thus, then, we are taught by the 
passage, not that God created the wicked to 
punish them, but so governs, controls, and sub- 
jects all things to himself, and so orders them 
for the accomplishment of his purpose, that the 
wicked shall not escape his just displeasure — 
since upon such men the day of evil will ulti- 
mately come. It is therefore added, in the next 
verse : " Though hand join in hand, he shall not 
be unpunished." 1 

John xii. 37-40: "But though he had done 
so many miracles before them, yet they believed 
not on him ; that the saying of Esaias the pro- 
phet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, 
who hath believed our report? and to whom 
hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ? There- 
fore they could not believe, because that Esaias 



1 Iloklen translates the verso: "Jehovah hath made all 
things for himself; yea, even the wicked ho daily sustains;" 
and observes: "Should the received translation bo deemed 
correct, 'tho day of oviF would be considered, by a Jew 
of the ago of Solomon, to mean tho day of trouble and 
affliction." 



said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and har- 
dened their heart, that they should not see with 
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and 
be converted, and I should heal them." 

Mr. Scott's interpretation is, in its first aspect, 
more moderate than that of many divines of the 
same school. It is — " They had long shut their 
own eyes, and hardened their own hearts ; and so 
God would give up many of them to such judicial 
blindness, as rendered their conversion and sal- 
vation impossible. The prophecy was not the 
motive or cause of their wickedness ; but it was 
the declaration of God's purpose, which could not 
be defeated ; therefore while this prophecy stood 
in Scripture against them, and others of like 
character, who hated the truth from the love of 
sin, the event became certain ; in which sense it 
is said that they could not believe." 

That in some special and aggravated cases, 
and especially in that which consisted in ascrib- 
ing the miracles of Christ to Satan, and thus 
blaspheming the Holy Ghost — cases, however, 
which probably affected but a few individuals, 
and those principally the chief Pharisees and 
rabbins of our Lord's time — there was such a 
judicial dereliction as Mr. Scott speaks of, is 
allowed ; but that it extended to the body of the 
Jews, who at that time did not believe in the 
mission and miracles of Christ, may be denied. 
The contrary must appear from the earnest 
manner in which their salvation was sought by 
Christ and his apostles, subsequently to this de- 
claration ; and also from the fact of great num- 
bers of this same people being afterward brought 
to acknowledge and embrace Christ and his 
religion. This is our objection to the former 
part of this interpretation. Not every one who 
is lost finally, is given up previously to judicial 
blindness. To' be thus abandoned before death 
is a special procedure, which our Lord himself 
confines to the special case of blasphemy against 
the Holy Ghost. To the latter part of the com- 
ment, the objection is still stronger. Mr. Scott 
acknowledges the wicked and wilful blindness of 
these Jews to be the cause of the judicial derelic- 
tion supposed. From this it would naturally 
follow, that this wilful blinding and hardening 
of their hearts was the true reason why they 
" could not believe," as provoking God to take 
away his Holy Spirit from them. But Mr. Soott 
cannot stop here. He will have another cause 
for their incapacity to believe; not. indeed, the 
prophecy quoted from Isaiah by tho evangelist ; 
but "God's purpose," of which that prediction, 
he says, was the "declaration." It follows, 
then, that "they could not believe." because it 
was " ("Jon's purpose, which could not b* dtfta'<\1." 
Agreeably to this, Mr. Scott understands the pre- 



565 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



dictic n :ing that the agent in blinding J 

the eyee :: Che reople reproved, that is, the ob- 
stinate Je^r. was God himself. 

Let ns now, therefore, more particularly ex- 
amine this passage, and we shall find, 

1. That it affirms not that their eves should 
be blinded, or their ears slosed, by a Divine 
agency. :- ; assumed by Mir. Scott and other Cal- 
vinists. This notion is not found in Isaiab n 
from which the quotation is made. There the 
agent is represented to be the prophet himself. 
"Make the heart of this people fat, and make 
their ears heavy, and shut their eyes : lest they 
see with their eyes," etc. Now, - the prophet 
could exert no secret direct influence over the 
min la of the disobedient Jews, he must have 
fulfilled this commission, if it be taken literally, 
7 leaching to them a fallacious and obdu- 
rating doctrine, like that of the false prophets ; 
but if, as we know, he preached no such doc- 
trine, then are the words to be understood ac- 
cording to the genius of the Hebrew language, 
which often represents him as an agent who is 
the occasion, however innocent and undesigned, 
of any thing being done by another. Thus the 
prophet, in consequence of the unbelief of :~_e 
Jews of his day in those promises of Messiah he 

vcpointed to deliver, and which led him to ! 
complain, "Who hath believed our report ?" be- 
came an occasion to the Jews of "making their 
own hearts fat. and their ears heavy, and of 
shutting their eyes*" against his testimony. The 
true agents were, however, the Jews themselves 
and by all who knew the genius of the Hebrew 
language they would be understood as so charged 
by the prophet. Thus the Septuagint, the 
Arabic, and the Syriac versions all agree in ren- 
dering the text, so that the people themselves, 
to whom the prophet wrote, are made the agents 
of doing that which, in the style of the He"c; sw 8, 
ribed to the prophet himself. So, also, i: 
is manifest that St. Paul, who quotes the same 
scripture, Acts zz~i:i. 25-27, understood the 
propter : ' ' Well spake the Holy Ghost by I 
the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto 
this people, and say. Hearing ye shall hear, and 
not understand : and seeing ye shall see, and not 
perceive ; for the heart of this people is waxed 
and their ears are dull of hearing, and 
their eye.* have ihet closed; lest they shon. 
with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and 
understand with their heart, and should be con- 
verted, and I should heal them."" "Nor in the 
passage as it is given by St. John, is the blind- 
ing of the eyes of the Jews attributed to God. 
true, in our version. "Hi hath 
bunded their ey But the Greek verbs 

have no nomina: sed, and it is left 



to be supplied by the reader. Nor does Che son- 
text mention the agent ; and further, if we sup- 
ply :_e pronoun he, we cannot refer it to God, 
since the passage th a change of pei 

" and I should heal them." The agent blinding 
and hardening, and the agent att em pt' 
"heal," cannot, therefore, be the same, be 
they are opposed to each other, not only gram- 
matically, but in design and operation. Thai 
agent, then, may be "the god of this -worl 
whom the work of blinding them that t - 
not is expressly attributed by the 
h Bt John, familiar with the Hebrew si 
might refer it to the prophet, who, consequen- 
tially, and through the wilful perversene- 
the Jews, was the occasion of their making their 
own "hear:^ gross, and closing their ears ;" or, 
finally, the personal verb may be used impe 
ally, and the active form for the passive, of 
which critics furnish parallel instances. 1 But 
in all these views the true responsible agent and 
criminal doer is "this people" — this perverse 
and obstinate people themselves : a point to 
which every part of their Scrip mi 3S - i _ : - .bund- 
ant testimony. 

2. It may be denied that the prophe: 
Isaiah here quoted is, as Mr. Scott repre 
it, "a declaration of God's purpose, which could 
not be defeated." A simple prophecy is not a 
declaration of purpose at all ; but the declara- 
tion of a future event. If a purpose of God, to 
be hereafter accomplished, be declared, th: 
claration becomes more than a simple prophecy : 
it connects the act with an agent; and in the 
case before us, that agen: La assumed to be 
God. But we have shown that the agent in 
blinding the eyes and closing the ears of these 
perverse Jews, is nowhere said to be God ; and 
therefore the prophecy is not a declaration of 
his purpose. Again, if it were a declaration of 
purj )se, it would not follow that it could 
not be defeated; for prophetic threatenings are 
not absolute, but imply conditions 
far from being a mere assumption, thcr 
blished by the authority of Almighty God him- 
self, who declares. Jer. xviii. 7, 8: "At what 
instant I shall speak concerning a natk: 
pluck up. and to pull down, and to destr 
if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, 
turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that 
I thought to do unto them." Here we have a 
prophetic commination uttered : " at what instant 
I speak' 7 — "that nation against whom I have 
pronounced.' 7 We have also the purpose in the 
mind of God — " the evil that I thought:'' an 



ig ■* , rephrase and Annot, and hia 

on the Fire Points, chap. i. 



CH. XXVII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



569 



this prediction might fail, and this purpose be 
defeated. So in the case of repentant Nineveh, 
the predicted destruction failed, and the wrathful 
purpose was defeated, without any impeachment 
of the Divine attributes: on the contrary, they 
were illustrated by this manifestation of the 
mingled justice and grace of his administra- 
tion. Mr. Scott, like many others, argues as 
though the prediction of an event gave certainty 
to it. But the certainty or uncertainty of events 
is not created by prophecy. Prophecy results 
from prescience ; and prescience has respect to 
what will be, but not necessarily to what must 
be. Of this, however, more in its proper place. 

3. If this prophecy could be made to bear all 
that the Calvinists impose upon it, it would 
not serve their purpose. It would, even then, 
afford no proof of general election and reproba- 
tion, since it has an exclusive application to the 
unbelieving part of the Jewish people only ; and 
is never adduced, either by St. John or by St. 
Paul, as the ground of any general doctrine 
whatever. 

Jude 4: "For there are certain men crept in 
unawares, who were before of old ordained to 
this condemnation, ungodly men," etc. 

The word which is here rendered ordained, is 
literally forewritten ; and the word rendered 
condemnation, signifies legal punishment, or judg- 
ment. The passage means, therefore, either 
that the class of men spoken of had been fore- 
told in the Scriptures, or that their punishment 
had been there formerly typified, in those exam- 
ples of ancient times, of which several are cited 
in the following verses : as Cain, Balaam, Korah, 
and the cities of the plain. Mr. Scott, there- 
fore, very well interprets the text, when he says, 
"The Lord had foreseen them, for they were of 
old registered to this condemnation : many pre- 
dictions had, from the beginning, been delivered 
to this effect." But when he adds, "Nay, these 
predictions had been extracts, as it were, from 
the registers of heaven, even the secret and 
eternal decrees of God, in which he had deter- 
mined to leave them to their pride and lusts, till 
they merited and received this condemnation," 
we may well ask for the proof. All this is mani- 
festly gratuitous — brought to the text, and not 
deduced from it — and is, therefore, very un- 
worthy of a commentator. The "extracts" from 
the register of God's decrees, as they are found 
in the Scriptures, contain no such sentiment as 
that these abusers of the grace of God only did 
that which they could not but do, in consequence 
of having been "left to their pride and lusts," 
and excluded before they were born from the 
mercies of Christ. If this sentiment, then, is 
not in the "extracts," it is not in the original 



register ; or else something is there which God, 
in his own revealed word, has not extracted, and 
respecting which the commentator must either 
have had some independent revelation, or have 
been guilty of speaking very rashly. On the 
contrary, in the parallel passage in 2 Peter ii. 
1-3, where the same class of persons is certainly 
spoken of, so far are they from being represented 
as excluded from the benefits of Christ's redemp- 
tion, that they are charged with a specific crime, 
which necessarily implies their participation in 
it, with the crime of "denying the Lord that 
bought them." 

1 Cor. iv. 7: "For who maketh thee to differ 
from another ?" 

The context shows that the apostle was here 
endeavoring to repress that ostentation which 
had arisen among many persons in the Church 
of Corinth, on account of their spiritual gifts 
and endowments. This he does by referring 
those gifts to God, as the sole giver — "For who 
maketh thee to differ?" or who confers supe- 
riority upon thee ? as the sense obviously is ; 
"and what hast thou that thou didst not re- 
ceive?" Mr. Scott acknowledges that "the apos- 
tle is here speaking more immediately of natural 
abilities and spiritual gifts ; and not of special 
and efficacious grace." If so, then the passage 
has nothing to do with this controversy. The 
argument he however affirms concludes equally 
in one case as in the other ; and in his sermon 
on election he thus applies it: "Let the bless- 
ings of the gospel be fairly proposed, with 
solemn warnings and pressing invitations, to two 
men of exactly the same character and disposi- 
tion: if they are left to themselves in entirely 
similar circumstances, the effect must be pre- 
cisely the same. But, behold, while one proudly 
scorns and resents the gracious offer, the other 
trembles, weeps, prays, repents, believes! Who 
maketh this man to differ from the other? or 
what hath he that he hath not received ? The 
scriptural answer to this question, when pro- 
perly understood, decides the whole contro- 
versy." 1 

As this is a favorite argument, and a popular 
dilemma in the hands of the Calvinists, and so 
much is supposed to depend upon its solution, 
we may somewhat particularly examine it. 

Instead of supposing the case of two men "of 
exactly the same character and disposition," why 
not suppose the same man in two moral states? 
for one man who "proudly scorns the gospel" 
does not more differ from another who penitently 
receives it than the same man who lui^ onoe soof* 



1 Calvin puts the matter in much tlio sumo way. lust. 
lib. iii., o. 24 



570 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



fingly rejected, and afterward meekly submitted 
to it, differs from himself: as, for instance, Saul 
the Pharisee from Paul the apostle. Xow, to ac- 
count for the case of two men, one receiving the 
gospel and the other rejecting it, the theory of 
election is brought in; but in the case of the 
one man in two different states, this theory can- 
not be resorted to. The man was elect from 
eternity : he is no outcast from the mercy of his 
God and the redemption of his Saviour, and yet, 
in one period of his life, he proudly scorns the 
offered mercy of Christ, at another he accepts it. 
It is clear, then, that the doctrine of election, 
simply considered in itself, will not solve the 
latter case, and by consequence it will not solve 
the former ; for the mere fact that one man re- 
jects the gospel while another receives it, is no 
more a proof of the non-election of the non- 
recipient than the fact of a man now rejecting it, 
who shall afterward receive it, is a proof of his 
non-election. The solution, then, must be sought 
for in some communication of the grace of God, 
in some inward operation upon the heart, which 
is supposed to be a consequence of election ; but 
this leads to another and distinct question. This 
question is not, however, the vincibility or in- 
vincibility of the grace of God, at least not in the 
first instance. It is, in truth, whether there is 
any operation of the grace of God in man at all 
tending to salvation in cases where we see the 
gospel rejected. Is the man who rejects per- 
severingly, and he who rejects but for a time, 
perhaps a long period of his life, left without 
any good motions or assisting influence from the 
grace of God, or not? This question seems to 
admit of but one of three answers. Either he 
has no gracious assistance at all to dispose him 
to receive the gospel : or he has a sufficient in- 
fluence of grace so to dispose him ; or that gra- 
cious influence is dispensed in an insufficient 
measure. If the first answer be given, then not 
only are the non-elect left without any visita- 
tions of grace throughout life, but the elect also 
are left without them until the moment of their 
effectual calling. If the second be offered as the 
answer, then both in the case of the non-elect 
man who finally rejects Christ, and that of the 
elect man who rejects him for a great part of his 
life, the saving grace of God must be allowed so 
to work as to be capable of counteraction and 
effectual resistance. If this be denied, then the 
third answer must be adopted, and the grace of 
God must be allowed so to influence as to be de- 
signedly insufficient for the ends for which it is 
given : that is, it is given for no saving end at all, 
either as to the non-elect, or as to the elect all 
the time they remain in a state of actual aliena- 
tion from Christ. For if an insufficient degree 



[PAET n. 

of grace is bestowed, when a sufficient degree 
might have been imparted, then there must have 
been a reason for restraining the degree of 
grace to an insufficient measure ; which reason 
could only be that it might be insufficient, and 
therefore not saving. Now, two of the three of 
these positions are manifestly contrary to the 
word of God. To say that no gracious influence 
of the Holy Spirit operates upon the unconverted, 
is to take away their guilt : since they cannot be 
guilty of rejecting the gospel if they have no 
power to embrace it, either from themselves or 
by impartation, while yet the Scripture repre- 
sents this as the highest guilt of men. All the 
exhortations, and reproofs, and invitations of 
Scripture are also, by this doctrine, turned into 
mockery and delusion ; and, finally, there can be 
no such thing in this case as -resisting the Holy 
Ghost ; ;; as " grieving and quenching the Spirit ;" 
as " doing despite unto the Spirit of grace," either 
in the case of the non-elect, who are never con- 
verted, or of the elect, before conversion : so 
that the latter have never been guilty of stub- 
bornness, and obstinacy, and rebellion, and resist- 
ance of grace ; though these are, by them, after- 
ward, always acknowledged among their sins. 
Xor did they ever feel any good motion, or draw- 
ing from the Spirit of God, before what they term 
their effectual calling ; though it is presumed that 
few if any of them will deny this in fact. 

If the doctrine that no grace is imparted be- 
fore conversion is then contradicted both by 
Scripture and experience, how will the case 
stand as to the intentional restriction of that 
grace to a degree which is insufficient to dispose 
the subject to the acceptance of the gospel? If 
this view be held, it must be maintained equally 
as to the elect before their conversion and as to 
the non-elect. In that case, then, we have equal 
difficulty in accounting for the guilt of man as 
when it is supposed that no grace at all is im- 
parted ; and for the reproofs, calls and invita- 
tions, and threatenings of the word of God. For 
where lies the difference between the absolute 
non-impartation of grace, and grace so imparted 
as to be designedly insufficient for salvation? 
Plainly there is none, except that we can see no 
end at all for giving insufficient grace — a cir- 
cumstance which would only serve to render still 
more perplexing the principles and practice of 
the Divine administration. It has no end of 
mercy, and none of justice ; nor, as far as can 
be perceived, of wisdom. Not of mercy, for it 
effects nothing merciful, and designs not to effect 
it: not of justice, for it places no man under 
equitable responsibility : not of wisdom, for it has 
no assignable end. The Scripture treats all men 
to whom the gospel is preached as endowed with 



OH. XXVII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



571 



power, not indeed from themselves but from the 
grace of God, to "turn at his reproof;" to come 
at his "call ;" to embrace his " grace ;" but they 
have no capacity for any of these acts if either 
of these opinions be true ; and thus the word of 
God is contradicted. So also is experience, in 
both cases ; for there could be no sense of guilt 
for having rejected Christ and grieved the Holy 
Spirit, either in the non-elect never converted or 
in the elect before conversion, if either they had 
no visitations of grace at all, or if these were 
designedly granted in an insufficient degree. 

It follows, then, that the doctrine of the im- 
partation of grace to the unconverted, in a suffi- 
cient degree to enable them to embrace the gos- 
pel, must be admitted ; and with this doctrine 
comes in that of a power in man to use or to 
spurn this heavenly gift and gracious assistance : 
in other words, a power of willing to come to 
Christ, even when men do not come : a power of 
considering their ways, and turning to the Lord, 
when they do not consider them and turn to him : 
a power of praying, when they do not pray ; 
and a power of believing, when they do not be- 
lieve : powers all of grace — all the results of the 
work of the Spirit in the heart ; but powers to 
be exerted by man, since it is man and not God 
who wills, and turns, and prays, and believes, 
while the influence under which this is clone is 
from the grace of God alone. This is the doctrine 
which is clearly contained in the words of St. 
Paul: "Work out your own salvation with fear 
and trembling ; for it is God which worketh in 
you both to will and to do, of his good plea- 
sure ;" where not only the operation of God but 
the cooperation of man are distinctly marked ; 
and are both held up as necessary to the produc- 
tion of the grand result — " salvation." 

It will appear, then, from these observations, 
that the question, "Who maketh thee to differ?" 
as urged by Mr. Scott and others from the time 
of Calvin, is a very inapposite one to their pur- 
pose ; for, 

First, it is a question which the apostle asks 
with no reference to a difference in religious 
state, but only with respect to gifts and endow- 
ments. Secondly, the Holy Ghost gives no au- 
thority for such an application of his words as 
is thus made in any other part of Scripture. 
Thirdly, it cannot be employed for the purpose 
for which it is dragged forth so often from its 
context and meaning ; for, in the use thus mado 
of it, it is falsely assumed that the two men in- 
stanced, the one who rejects and the other who 
embraces the gospel, are not each endowed with 
sufficient grace to enable them to rcccivo God's 
gracious offer. Now this, we may again say, 
inn t either be denied or affirmed. 11' it be af- 



firmed, then the difference between the two men 
consists, not where they place it, in the destitu- 
tion or deficiency on the one hand, or in the 
plenitude on the other, of the grace of God, but 
in the use of grace ; and when they say, "It is 
God which maketh them to differ," they say in 
fact that it is God that not only gives sufficient 
grace to each, but uses that grace for them. For 
if it be allowed that sufficient grace for repent- 
ance and faith is given to each, then the true 
difference between them is, that one repents, and 
the other does not repent : the one believes, and 
the other does not believe. If, therefore, this 
difference is to be attributed to God directly, 
then the act of repenting and the act cf believing 
are both the acts of God. If they hesitate to 
avow this, for it is an absurdity, then either they 
must give up the question as totally useless to 
them, or else take the other side of the alterna- 
tive, that to all who reject the gospel sufficient 
grace to receive it is not given. How then will 
that serve them ? They may say, it is true, when 
they take the man who embraces the gospel, 
"Who maketh him to differ but God, who gives 
this sufficient grace to him?" but then we have 
an equal right to take the man who rejects the 
gospel, and ask, "Who maketh him to differ" 
from the man that embraces it ? To this they 
cannot reply that he maketh himself to differ; 
for that which they here lay down is, that he has 
either no grace at all imparted to him to enable 
him to act as the other ; or, what amounts to the 
same thing, no sufficient degree of it to produce 
a true faith ; that he never had that grace ; that 
he is, and always must remain, as destitute of it 
as when he was born. He does not, therefore, 
make himself to differ from the man who embraces 
the gospel ; for he has no power to imitate his 
example, and to make himself equal with him ; 
and the only answer to our question is, " that it 
is God who maketh him to differ from the other," 
by withholding that grace by which alone he 
could be prevented from rejecting the gospel; 
and this, so far from "settling the whole contro- 
versy," is the very point in debate. 

This dilemma, then, will prove, when exam- 
ined, but inconvenient to themselves ; for if suf- 
ficiency of grace be allowed to the unconverted, 
then the Calvinists make the acts of grace, as 
well as the gift of grace itself, to be the work of 
God in the elect: if sufficiency of grace is de- 
nied, then the unbelief and condemnation of the 
wicked are not from themselves but from God. 1 



i This Calvin scruples not to say: " The supreme Lord, 
therefore, by depriving of the communication o\' his light, 
ami leaving in darkneBS those whom ho has reprobated, 
makes way for the accomplishment of his own predestina- 
tion." — Inst,, lib. iii. c. -i. 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



The fact is that this supposed puzzle has been 
always used ad captandum, and is unworthy so 
grave a controversy; and as to the pretence that 
the admission of a power in man to use or to 
abuse the grace of God involves some merit or 
ground of glorying in man himself, this is equally 
fallacious. The power "to will and to do," is 
the sole result of the working of God in man. 
All is of grace: "By the grace of God," must 
every one say, "I am what I am." Here is no 
dispute : every good thought, desire, and tend- 
ency of the heart, and all its power to turn these 
to practical account by prayer, by faith, by the 
use of the means of grace, through which new 
power "to will and to do," new power to use 
grace, as well as new grace, is communicated, is 
of God. Every good act, therefore, is the use 
of a communicated power which is given of 
grace, as the stretching out of the withered hand 
of the healed man was the use of the power 
communicated to his imbecility, and still working 
with the act, though not the act itself ; and to at- 
tempt to lay a ground of boasting and self- 
sufficiency in the assisted acceptance of the grace 
of God by us, and the empowered submission of 
our hearts to it, is as manifestly absurd as it 
would be to say that the man whose arm was 
withered had great reason to congratulate him- 
self on his share in the glory of the miracle, be- 
cause he himself stretched out the invigorated 
member at the command of Christ ; and because 
it was not, in fact, lifted up by the hand of him 
who, in that act of faith and obedience, had 
healed him. 

The question of the invincibility of Divine 
grace is a point to be in another place considered. 

Acts xviii. 9, 10: "Be not afraid, but speak, 
and hold not thy peace ; for I am with thee, and 
no man shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have 
much people in this city." 

Mr. Scott, to whom the doctrine of election is 
always present, says: "In this Christ evidently 
spake of those who were Ms by election, the gift 
of the Father, and his own purchase; though, 
at that time, in an unconverted state." [Notes in 
loc.) It would have been more "evident" had 
this been said by the writer of the Acts as well 
as by Mr. Scott, or any thing approaching to it. 
The "evidence," we fear, was all in Mr. Scott's 
predisposition of mind ; for it nowhere else 
appears. The expression is, at least, capable of 
two very satisfactory interpretations, independent 
of the theory of Calvinistic election. It may 
mean that there were many well-disposed and 
serious inquirers among the "Greeks" in Cor- 
inth ; for when Paul turned from the Jews, he 
"entered into the house of Justus, one that wor- 
shipped God." This man was a Greek proselyte; 



I and, from various parts of the Acts of the Apos- 
■ ties, it is plain that this class of people were not 
j only numerous, but generally received the gospel 
! with joy, and were among the first who joined 
! the primitive Churches. They manifested their 
j readiness to receive the gospel in Corinth itself, 
when the Jews "opposed and blasphemed;" and 
it is not improbable that to such proselytes, who 
were in many places "a people prepared for the 
' Lord," reference is made when our Saviour, 
speaking to Paul in this vision, says, "I have 
; much people in this city." Suppose, however, 
he speaks prospectively and prophetically, mak- 
ing his foreknowledge of an event the means of 
encouraging the labors of his devoted apostle, 
the doctrine of election follows neither from the 
fact of the foreknowledge of God, nor from pro- 
; phetic declarations grounded upon it. Even 
| Calvin founds not election upon God's foreknow- 
I ledge, but upon his decree. 

A few other passages might be added, which 
are sometimes adduced as proofs of the Calvin- 
! istic theory of "election" and "distinguishing 
grace ;" but they are all either explained by that 
view of scriptural election which has been at 
large adduced, or are of very obvious interpreta- 
tion. I believe that I have omitted none on which 
any great stress is laid in the controversy ; and 
the reader will judge how far those which have 
been examined serve to support those inferences 
which tend to limit the universal import of those 
declarations which prove, in the literal sense of 
the terms, that our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
i Christ, "by the grace of God, tasted death for 
every man." / 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 



THEORIES WHICH LIMIT THE EXTENT OF THE DEATH 
OF CHRIST. 

"We have, in the foregoing attempt to establish 
the doctrine of the redemption of all mankind 
against our Calvinistic brethren, taken their 
• scheme in the sense in which it is usually under- 
! stood, without noticing those minuter shades with 
which the system has been varied. In this dis- 
j cussion, it is hoped that no expression has 
hitherto escaped inconsistent with candor. Doc- 
trinal truth would be as little served by this as 
Christian charity ; nor ought it ever to be for- 
' gotten by the theological inquirer, that the sys- 
| tern which we have brought under review has, in 
some of its branches, always embodied, and 
often preserved, in various parts of Christendom, 
I that truth which is vital to the Church and salu- 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



573 



tary to the souls of men. It has numbered, too, 
among its votaries, many venerable names ; and 
many devoted and holy men, whose "writings often 
rank among the brightest lights of scriptural 
criticism and practical divinity. We think the 
peculiarities of their creed clearly opposed to the 
sense of Scripture, and fairly chargeable, in 
argument, with all those consequences we have 
deduced from them ; and which, were it neces- 
sary to the discussion, might be characterized in 
still stronger language. Those consequences, 
however, let it be observed, we only exhibit as 
logical ones. By many of this class of divines 
they are denied : by others modified ; and by a 
third party explained away to their own satisfac- 
tion by means of metaphysical and subtile dis- 
tinctions. As logical consequences only they 
are therefore, in such cases, fairly to be charged 
upon our opponents, in any disputes which may 
arise. By keeping this distinction in view, the 
discussion of these points may be preserved un- 
fettered ; and candor and charity sustain no wound. 

We shall now proceed to justify the general 
view we have taken of the Calvinistic doctrine 
of election, predestination, and partial redemp- 
tion, by adducing the sentiments of Calvin him- 
self, and of Calvinistic theologians and Churches ; 
after which our attention may be directed, 
briefly, to some of those more modern modifica- 
tions of the system, which, though they differ 
not, as we think, so materially from the original 
model as some of their advocates suppose, yet make 
concessions not unimportant to the more liberal, 
and, as we believe, the only scriptural theory. 

Calvin has at large opened his sentiments on 
election, in the third book of his Institutes. 
The following quotations are made from Allen's 
translation: London, 1823. "Predestination 
we call the eternal decree of God, by which he 
hath determined in himself what he would have 
to become of every individual of mankind. For 
they are not all created with similar destiny ; 
but eternal life is foreordained for some, and 
eternal damnation for others. Every man, there- 
fore, being created for one or other of these ends, 
we say he is predestinated, either to life or 
to death." After having spoken of the election 
of the race of Abraham, and then of particular 
branches of that race, he proceeds: "Though 
it is sufficiently clear that God, in his secret 
counsel, freely chooses whom he will, and rejects 
others, his gratuitous election is but half dis- 
played till we come to particular individuals, to 
whom God not only oilers salvation, but assigns 
it in such a manner that the certainty of the 
effect is liable to no suspense or doubt." Ho 
Bums up the chapter, in which ho thus generally 
states the doctrine, in these words — chap. xxi. 



book III. : — "In conformity, therefore, to the 
clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert that, 
by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath, 
once for all, determined both whom he would 
admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn 
to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as 
far as concerns the elect, is founded on his 
gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human 
merit; but that, to those whom he devotes to 
condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a 
just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, 
judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as 
an evidence of election, and justification as 
another token of its manifestation, till they 
arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. 
As God seals his elect by vocation and justifica- 
tion, so, by excluding the reprobate from the 
knowledge of his name, and sanctification of 
his Spirit, he affords another indication of the 
judgment that awaits them." 

In the commencement of the following chapter 
— book III. chap. xxii. — he thus rejects the no- 
tion that predestination is to be understood as 
resulting from God's foreknowledge of what 
would be the conduct of either the elect or the 
reprobate. "It is a notion commonly enter- 
tained, that God, foreseeing what would be the 
respective merits of every individual, makes a 
correspondent distinction between different per- 
sons : that he adopts as his children such as he 
foreknows will be deserving of his grace, and 
devotes to the damnation of death others whose 
dispositions he sees will be inclined to wicked- 
ness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure 
election by covering it with the veil of fore- 
knowledge, but pretend that it originates in an- 
other cause." Consistently with this, he, a 
little farther on, asserts that election does not 
flow from holiness, but holiness from election. 
" For when it is said that the faithful are elected 
that they should be holy, it is fully implied 
that the holiness they were in future to possess 
had its origin in election." He proceeds to quote 
the example of Jacob and Esau, as loved and 
hated before they had done good or evil, to show 
that the only reason of election and reprobation 
is to be placed in God's "secret counsel." He 
will not allow the future wickedness of the re- 
probate to have been considered in the decree of 
their rejection, any more than tho righteousness 
of the elect as influencing their hotter fate. 
"God hath mercy on whom he will have meroy, 
and whom he will he hardeneth. You see how 
he (the apostle) attributes both to the mere mil 
of God. If, therefore, we can assign no reason 
why he grants mercy to his people, but because 
such is his pleasure, neither Bhall we find any 
other cause but his will for the reprobation of 



574 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



others. For when God is said to harden, or show 
mercy to whom he pleases, men are taught, by 
this declaration, to seek no cause beside his will." 
— Book III. chap. xxii. "Many, indeed, as if 
they wished to avert odium from God, admit 
election in such a way as to deny that any one 
is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, 
because election itself could not exist without 
being opposed to reprobation : whom God passes 
by, he therefore reprobates ; and from no other cause 
than his determination to exclude them from the 
inheritance which he predestines for his child- 
ren." — Book III. chap, xxiii. 

This is the scheme of predestination, as ex- 
hibited by Calvin ; and it is remarkable that the 
answers which he is compelled to give to objec- 
tions did not unfold to this great and acute man 
its utter contrariety to the testimony of God, and 
to all established notions of equity among men. 
To the objection taken from justice, he replies: 
" They (the objectors) inquire by what right the 
Lord is angry with his creatures who had not 
provoked him by any previous offence ; for that 
to devote to destruction whom he pleases, is 
more like the caprice of a tyrant, than the law- 
ful sentence of a judge. If such thoughts ever 
enter into the minds of pious men, they will be 
sufficiently enabled to break their violence by 
this one consideration — How exceedingly pre- 
sumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes 
of the Divine will, which is, in fact, and is justly 
entitled to be, the cause of every thing that 
exists. For if it has any cause, then there 
must be something antecedent on which it de- 
pends, which it is impious to suppose. For the 
will of God is the highest rule of justice — so that 
what he wills must be considered just ; for this 
very reason, because he wills it." The evasions 
are here curious. 1. He assumes the very thing 
in dispute, that God has willed the destruction 
of any part of the human race, "for no other 
cause than because he wills it:" of which as- 
sumption there is not only not a word of proof 
in Scripture, but, on the contrary, all Scripture 
ascribes the death of him that dieth to his own 
will, and not to the will of God, and therefore 
contradicts his statement. 2. He pretends that 
to assign any cause to the Divine will is to sup- 
pose something antecedent to, something above 
God, and, therefore, "impious:" as if we might 
not suppose something in God to be the rule of 
his will, not only without any impiety, but with 
truth and piety — as, for instance, his perfect 
wisdom, holiness, justice, and goodness; or, in 
other words, to believe the exercise of his will 
to flow from the perfection of his whole nature : 
a much more honorable and scriptural view of 
the will of God than that which subjects it to no 



rule, even in the nature of God himself. 3. When 
he calls the will of God "the highest rule of jus- 
tice," beyond which we cannot push our inquiries, 
he confounds the will of God, as a rule of jus- 
tice to us, and as a rule to himself. This 
will is our rule ; yet even then because we know 
that it is the will of a perfect being ; but when 
Calvin represents mere will as constituting God's 
own rule of justice, he shuts out knowledge, 
discrimination of the nature of things, and ho- 
liness ; which is saying something very different 
to that great truth, that God cannot will any 
thing but what is perfectly just. It is to say 
that blind will, will which has no respect to any 
thing but itself, is God's highest rule of justice 
— a position which, if presented abstractly, many 
of the most ultra Calvinists would spurn. 4. 
He determines the question by the authority of 
his own metaphysics, and totally forgets that 
one dictum of inspiration overturns his whole 
theory : God "willeth all men to be saved" — a de- 
claration which, in no part of the sacred volume, is 
opposed or limited by any contrary declaration. 

Calvin is not, however, content thus to leave 
the matter, but resorts to an argument in which 
he has been generally followed by those who 
have adopted his system, with some mitigations. 
"As we are all corrupted by sin, we must neces- 
sarily be odious to God, and that not from 
tyrannical cruelty, but in the most equitable esti- 
mation of justice. If all whom the Lord predes- 
tinates to death are, in their natural condition, 
liable to the sentence of death, what injustice 
do they complain of receiving from him ?" To 
this Calvin very fairly states the obvious rejoin- 
der made in his day, and which the common 
sense of mankind will always make: "They 
object, were they not, by the decree of God, 
antecedently predestinated to that corruption 
which is now stated as the cause of their con- 
demnation ? When they perish in their corrup- 
tion, therefore, they only suffer the punishment 
of that misery into which, in consequence of 
his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated 
his posterity with him." The manner in which 
Calvin attempts to refute this objection, shows 
how truly unanswerable it is upon his system. 
"I confess," says he, "indeed, that all the de- 
scendants of Adam fell, by the Divine will, into 
that miserable condition in which they are now 
involved ; and this is what I asserted from the 
beginning, that we must always return at last to 
the sovereign determination of God's will, the cause 
of which is hidden in himself. But it follows 
not, therefore, that God is liable to this reproach ; 
for we will answer them in the language of Paul, 
' man ! who art thou that repliest against God ? 
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 



CH. XXVIII.] 

it, Why hast thou made me thus ?' " That is, in 
order to escape the pinch of the objection, he 
assumes that St. Paul affirms that God has 
"formed" a part of the human race for eternal 
misery; and that, by imposing silence upon 
them, he intended to declare that this proceed- 
ing in God was just. Now the passage may be 
proved, from the context, to mean no such thing ; 
but, if that failed, and it were more obscure in 
its meaning than it really is, such an interpreta- 
tion would be contradicted by many other plain 
texts of holy writ, of which Calvin takes no 
notice. Even if this text would serve the pur- 
pose better, it gives no answer to the objection ; 
for we are brought round again, as indeed Cal- 
vin confesses, to his former, and indeed only 
argument, that the whole matter, as he states it, 
is to be referred back to the Divine will, which 
will, though perfectly arbitrary, is, as he con- 
tends, the highest rule of justice. "I say, with 
Augustin, that the Lord created those whom he 
certainly foreknew would fall into destruction ; 
and that this was actually so, because he willed 
it; but of his will, it belongs not to us to 
demand the reason, which we are incapable of 
comprehending — nor is it reasonable that the 
Divine will should be made the subject of con- 
troversy with us, which is only another name 
for the highest rule of justice." Thus he shuts 
us out from pursuing the argument. When 
God places fences against our approach, we 
grant that we are bound not "to break through 
and gaze;" but not so when man, without au- 
thority, usurps this authority, and warns us off 
from his own inclosures, as though we were 
trespassing upon the peculiar domains of God 
himself. Calvin's evasion proves the objection 
unanswerable. For, if all is to be resolved into 
the mere will of God, as to the destruction of 
the reprobate; if they were created for this 
purpose, as Calvin expressly affirms ; if they 
fell into their corruption in pursuance of God's 
determination; if, as he had said before, "God 
passes them by, and reprobates them, from no 
other cause than his determination to exclude 
them from the inheritance of his children," why 
refer to their natural corruption at all, and their 
being odious to God in that state, since the'same 
reason is given for their corruption as for their 
reprobation? — not any fault of theirs, but the 
mere will of God, "the reprobation hidden in 
his secret counsel," and not grounded on the 
visible and tangible fact of their demerit. Thus, 
the election taught by Calvin is not a choice of 
some persons to peculiar grace from the whole 
mass, equally deserving of punishment — though 
this is a sophism — for, in that case, the decree 
of reprobation would rest upon God's foreknow- 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



575 



ledge of those passed by as corrupt and guilty, 
which notion he rejects. "For since God fore- 
sees future events only in consequence of his 
decree that they shall happen, it is useless to con- 
tend about foreknowledge, while it is evident 
that all things come to pass rather by ordination 
and decree. It is a horrible decree, I confess ; 
but no one can deny that God foreknew the fu- 
ture fate of man before he created him; and 
that he did foreknow it, because it was appointed 
by his own decree." Agreeably to this, he re- 
pudiates the distinction between will and per- 
mission. ' ' For what reason shall we assign for 
his permitting it, but because it is his will ? It 
is not probable, however, that man procured his 
own destruction by the mere permission, and 
without any appointment of God." 

With this doctrine he again makes a singular 
attempt to reconcile the demerit of men : "Their 
perdition depends on the Divine predestination 
in such a manner, that the cause and matter of it 
are found in themselves. For the first man fell 
because the Lord had determined it should so 
happen. The reason of this determination is 
unknown to us. Man, therefore, falls according 
to the appointment of Divine providence ; but he 
falls by his own fault. The Lord had a little be- 
fore pronounced every thing that he had made to 
be ' very good.' Whence, then, comes the deprav- 
ity of man to revolt from his God ? Lest it 
should be thought to come from creation, God 
approved and commended what had proceeded 
from himself. By his own wickedness, therefore, 
man corrupted the nature he had received pure 
from the Lord, and by his fall he drew all his 
posterity with him to destruction." It is in this 
way that Calvin attempts to avoid the charge of 
making God the author of sin. But how God 
should not merely permit the defection of the 
first man, but appoint it, and will it, and that his 
will should be the "necessity of things," all 
which he had before asserted, and yet that Deity 
should not be the author of that which he ap- 
pointed, willed, and imposed a necessity upon, would 
be rather a delicate inquiry. It is enough that 
Calvin rejects the impious doctrine ; and even 
though his principles directly lead to it, since he 
has put in his disclaimer, he is entitled to be 
exempted from the charge ; but the logical con- 
clusion is inevitable. 

In much the same manner he contends that 
the necessity of sinning is laid upon the repro- 
bate by the ordination of God, and yel denies 
God to be tho author of their sin, since the cor- 
ruption of men was derived from Adam, by his 
own fault, and not from (ion. Eere, also, al- 
though the difficulty still remains ol' conceiving 
how a necessity of sinning should be laid on the 



576 



THEOLOGICAL IXSTITTTTES 



descendants of Adam, and that -without any coun- 
teraction of grace in the case of the reprobate, 
and that this should be attributable to the -will 
of God as its cause, -while yet God, in no sense 
injurious to his perfections, is to be regarded as 
the author of sin, we still admit Calvin's dis- 
claimer ; but then he cannot have the advantage 
on both sides, and must renounce this or some 
of his former positions. He exhorts us "rather 
to contemplate the evident cause of condemna- 
tion, -which is nearer to us, in the corrupt nature 
of mankind, than search after a hidden and 
altogether incomprehensible one, in the predes- 
tination of God." "For though, by the eternal 
providence of God, man -was created to that misery 
to "which he is subject, yet the ground of it he 
has derived from himself, not God : since he is 
thus ruined, solely in consequence of his having 
degenerated from the pure creation of God to 
vicious and impure depravity. " Thus, almost in 
the same breath, he affirms that men became 
reprobate from no other cause than "the "will of 
God," and his "sovereign determination:" that 
men have no reason "to expostulate -with God, 
if they are predestinated to eternal death, with- 
out any demerit of their own, merely by his sov- 
ereign will:*'' and then, that the corrupt nature 
of mankind is the evident and nearer cause of 
condemnation ; (which cause, however, was still 
a matter of "appointment," and "ordination,'' 
not "permission:") and that man is "ruined 
solely in consequence of his having degenerated 
from the pure state in which God created him." 
XoW these propositions manifestly fight with each 
other ; for if the reason of reprobation be laid in 
man's corruption, it cannot be laid in the mere 
will and sovereign determination of God, unless 
we suppose him to be the author of sin. It is 
this offensive doctrine only which can reconcile 
them. For if God so wills, and appoints, and 
necessitates the depravity of man, as to be the 
author of it, then there is no inconsistency in 
saying that the ruin of the reprobate is both 
from the mere will of God, and from the corrup- 
tion of their nature, which is but the result of 
that will. The one is then, as Calvin states, the 
"evident and nearer cause," the other the more 
remote and hidden one ; yet they have the same 
source, and are substantially acts of the same will. 
But if it be denied that God is, in any sense, 
the author of evil, and if sin is from man alone, 
then is the "corruption of nature" the effect of 
an independent will: and if this be the "real 
source," as he says, of men's condemnation, then 
the decree of reprobation rests not upon the sov- 
ereign will of God, as its sole cause, which he 
affirms, but upon a cause dependent on the will 
of the first man. But as this is denied, then the 



[part n. 

other must follow. Calvin himself indeed con- 
tends for the perfect concurrence of these proxi- 
mate and remote causes, although, in point of 
fact, to have been perfectly consistent with him- 
self, he ought rather to have called the mere icill 
of God the cause of the decree of reprobation, 
and the corruption of man the means by which 
it is carried into effect : language which he sanc- 
tions, and which many of his followers have not 
scrupled to adopt. 

So fearfully does this opinion involve in it the 
consequences that in sin man is the instrument, 
and God the actor, that it cannot be maintained, 
as stated by Calvin, without this conclusion. 
For as two causes of reprobation are expressly 
laid down, they must be either opposed to each 
other, or be consenting. If they are opposed, 
the scheme is given up : if consenting, then are 
both reprobation and human corruption the re- 
sults of the same will, the same decree and 
necessity. It would be trifling to say that the 
decree does not influence ; for if so, it is no 
decree in Calvin's sense, who understands the de- 
cree of God, as the foregoing extracts and the 
whole third book of his Institutes plainly show, 
as appointing what shall be, and by that appoint- 
ment making it necessary. Otherwise he could 
not reject the distinction between will and per- 
mission, and avow the sentiment of St. Augus- 
tin, "that the will of God is the necessity of 
things ; and that what he has willed will neces- 
sarily come to pass." (Bookiii. chap. 23, sec. 8.) 
So, in writing to Castalio, he makes the sin of 
Adam the result of an act of God. "You say 
Adam fell by his free will. I except against it. 
That he might not fall, he stood in need of that 
strength and constancy with which God armeth 
all the elect, as long as he will keep them blame- 
less. Whom God has elected, he props up with 
an invincible power unto perseverance. Why 
did he not afford this to Adam, if he would have 
had h im stand in his integrity?" 1 And with 
this view of necessity, as resulting from the de- 
cree of God, the immediate followers of Calvin 
coincide : the end and the means, as to the elect, 
and as to the reprobate, are equally fixed by the 
decree ; and are both to be traced to the appoint- 
ing and ordaining will of God. On such a scheme 
it is, therefore, worse than trifling to attempt to 
make out a case of justice in favor of this 
sumed Divine procedure, by alleging the corrup- 
tion and guilt of man : a point which, indeed, 
Calvin himself, in fact, gives up, when he - 
"That the reprobate obey not the word of God, 
when made known to them, is justly imputed to 
the wickedness and depravity of their hearts, 

1 Quoted in Bishop Womaek's Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked, 
page 34. 



CH. XXVIII.] 

provided it be at the same time stated that they are 
abandoned to this depravity, because they have 
been raised up by a just but inscrutable judgment 
of God, to display his glory in their condemna- 
tion." (Inst, book iii. chap. 24, sec. 14.) 

It is by availing themselves of these ineffectual 
struggles of Calvin to give some color of justice 
to his reprobating decree, by fixing upon the cor- 
ruption of man as a cause of reprobation, that 
some of his followers have endeavored, in the 
very teeth of his own express words, to reduce 
his system to sublapsarianism. This was at- 
tempted by Amyraldus ; who was answered by 
Curcellceus, in his tract "De Jure Dei in Crea- 
turas." This last writer, partly by several of 
the same passages we have given above from 
Calvin's Institutes, and by extracts from his 
other writings, proves that Calvin did by no 
means consider man, as fallen, to be the object 
of reprobation ; but man not yet created ; man 
as to be created, and so reprobated, under no 
consideration in the Divine mind of his fall or 
actual guilt, except as consequences of an eternal 
pretention of the persons of the reprobate, re- 
solvable only into the sovereign pleasure of God. 
The references he makes to men as corrupt, and 
to their corrupt state as the proximate cause of 
their rejection, are all manifestly used to parry off 
rather than to answer objections, and somewhat 
to soften, as Curcellceus observes, the harsher 
parts of his system. And, indeed, for what rea- 
son are we so often brought back to that unfail- 
ing refuge of Calvin and his followers, "the 
presumption and wickedness of replying against 
God ?" For if reprobation be a matter of hu- 
man desert, it cannot be a mystery ; if it be ade- 
quate punishment for an adequate fault, there is 
no need to urge it upon us to bow with submis- 
sion to an unexplained sovereignty. We may 
add, there is no need to speak of a remote or 
first cause of reprobation, if the proximate cause 
will explain the whole case ; and that Calvin's 
continual reference to God's secret counsel, and 
will, and inscrutable judgment, could have no apt- 
ness to his argument. 1 Among English divines, 

1 Amyraldus tamen, ut eum infra lapsum substitisse pro- 
bet, in constituendo reprobationis objecto, profcrt quaedam 
loca in quibus ille corruptee mass<e meminit, ethujusdecreti 
eequitatem ab originali peccaio arcessit. Sed facilis est re- 
6ponsio. Nam Calvinus ipso, qua rationo ista cum iis qua; 
attnli sint concilianda nos docet, nimirum adhibita distinc- 
tione inter propinquam reprobationis causam, quam resi- 
dentem in nobis corruptionem esse vult, et romotam, quee 
Bit unicum Dei beneplacitum. Et quanquam variis in 1m is 
causam propinquam, vcluti ad sentcntiaj sua) duritiem 
emolliondam aptiorom, magis videatur urgoro; ita tamen 
id fecit ut non rard consilii ar cant, voluntatis occultce, judicii 
inscrutabilis, et similium, quibus prirnam rejectionis causam 
Bolet designaro, ibidem simul meminerit. (De Jure Dei, etc., 
cap. x.) 

37 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



577 



Dr. Twiss has sufficiently defended Calvin from 
the charge, as he esteems it, of sublapsarianism ; 
and, whatever merit Twiss's own supralapsarian 
creed may have, his argument on this point is 
unanswerable. 

This, then, is the doctrine of Calvin, which 
was followed by several of the Churches of the 
Reformation, who in this respect distinguished 
themselves from the Lutherans. 2 It was a 
doctrine, however, unknown in the primitive 
Churches ; and may be ranked among those 
errors which the pagan philosophy subsequently 
engrafted upon the faith of Christ. 3 

Bishop Tomline's "Refutation of Calvinism," 
although very erroneous in some of its doctrinal 
views, has some valuable and conclusive quota- 
tions from the ancient fathers, proving "that 
the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct 
opposition to the doctrines maintained in the 
first ages." They also show that there is a 
great similarity between some points in that 
system and several of the most prevalent of the 
early heresies. " The Manicheans denied the 
freedom of the human will; and spoke of the 
elect as persons who could not sin, or fail of sal- 
vation." The fruitful source of these notions 
was the Gnosticism of early times, which was 
the worst part of the speculative pagan philo- 
sophy, engrafted on a corrupted Christianity; 
and was vigorously opposed by the fathers, from 
the earliest date. In this system of affected 
and dreaming wisdom, it was assumed that 
some souls were created bad, and others good ; 
and that they sprang, therefore, from different 
principles, or creators. Origen contended, in 



2 "The Reformed Church, in the largest import of the 
word, comprises all the religious communities which have 
separated themselves from the Church of Rome. In this 
sense the words are often used by English writers; but 
haying been adopted by the French Calvinists to describe 
their Church, this term is most commonly used on the con- 
tinent as a general appellation of all the Churches who pro- 
fess the doctrines of Calvin. About the year 1541, the 
Church of Geneva was placed by the magistrates of that 
city under the direction of Calvin, where his learning, elo- 
quence, and talents for business, soon attracted general 
notice. By degrees his fame reached to every part of 
Europe. Having prevailed upon the Senate of Geneva to 
found an academy, and place it under his superintendence: 
and having filled it with men, eminent throughout Europe 
for their learning and talent, it became the favorite resort 
of all persons who leaned to the new principles, and Bought 
religious and literary instruct ion. From Germany, France, 
Italy, England, and Scotland, numbers crowded to the now 

I academy, and returned from it to their native countries. 
] saturated with the doctrine of Geneva, and burning with 
zeal to propagate its creed."— IUtuk's Li/, of lirotius. 

3 This was the. view of Molanethon, Who, In writing to 
Bucer, says, "Lnelius writes to me, and says, that the eon 
trovorsy respecting the Stoical Fate is Agitated with such 
uncommon fervor at Geneva, thai one Individual is east 
into prison because he happened to differ from Zeno." 



575 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



opposition to these speculations, that aU souls 
by nature of the same quality ; that the 
use :: the freedom of will made the differences , 
we see in practice : and thai this liberty ren- 
dered them liable to reward and to punishment : 
ascribing, however, this recovered freedom of 
the will, which had been lost in Adam, to the 
graee of Christ. The Platonism which he mixed j 
up with his system was justly resisted in the j 
Church ; but his doctrine of the freedom of the ■ 
will prevailed generally in the east. It was 
afterward carried to a dangerous extent \>y Pela- 
ri-5. vrh:5r i: ::::..-:- ~ - niilirl '17 '. \a: v.. 
Fhese fiscnasioBS ::._ ed A -gustin into a conti-o- 
versy, which earried him to the opposite ex- 
treme ; and appears to have revive 1 the Mani- I 
:L-ri- r.::i:i_i :: Lis 7 ;-;:"_ iz s-ol: •:. iegree ;.s 
greatly to tinge many parts of Ids system — :'- 
that heresy. He was a powerful, but rasteadj 
writer : and has expressed himself so inconsist- j 
ently as to have divided tie opinions of the 1 
Latin Church, where his authority has ahrayE 
been greatest He held, although his writings 
afford many passages contradictory of the state- 
ment that "God, from the foundation of the 
world, decreed to save some men, and to consign 
others to eternal punishment" Notwithstand- 
ing his authority, his views on predestination 
and grace appear to have made no great impres- 
sion upon even the Western Church, where the 
Collations of Cassian, a disciple of Chrysostom, 
a work which has been called semi-Pelagian, 
was held in extensive T~:imation; so that sub- 
5'in;:Al*7 n: zre:.: iirerezoe <:: :rini:i: cpreirei 
between the Western and the Greek Churches, 
on these points, for several centuries. In the 
ninth century St Austins doctrines were re- 
vived and asserted by Goteschale, who was as 
absurdly as wickedly persecuted on that ac- 
count. Hi 3 doctrines were condemned in two 
councils ; and the controversy was laid to rest, 
until the subtile {aestiona contained in it wexe 
revived by the schoolmen. Thomas Aquinas 
and the Dominicans adopted the strongest views 
of Angus tin on predestination and necessity, 
and improved upon them : Scotus and the Fran- 
ciscans took the opposite aide; and the infalli- 
bility of the pope has not yet been empl : 7 
settle this point By condemning Jansenius, 
however, while it has honored Augustin, that 
Church, as Bayle observes, (Dictionary, Art. 
Auguttin.) has involved itself in great perplexi- 
ties. The authority of this father with the 
Church of Rome was indeed an advantage which 
the first reformers did not fail to make a 
From him they supported their views on justifi- 
cation by faith; and finding so much of evan- 
gelical truth on this and some other subje 



"iazi ::. 



bis writings, they were insensibly biased to the 
parts of his system. Luther recovered 
from this error in the bitter part of his life : and 
the Lutheran Churches settled in the doctrine 
of universal redemption. 1 Augustin: ; 
fected and systematized by the able hand of 
Calvin, was received by several of the reformed 
Churches : and gave rise to a controversy which 
has remained to this day, though happily it has 
of bite been conducted with less asperity. The 
system, as issued by Calvin, has, however, un- 
dergone various modifications : some theologians 
and their followers having carried out his prin- 
ciples to their full length, so as to advocate or 
sanction the Antinomian heresy; while others, 
either to avoid this fearful result or perceiving 
the discrepancy of the harsher parts of the theory 
with the word of God, having impressed upon it 
a more mitigated aspect 

The three leading schemes of predestination, 
prevalent among the reformed Churches previous 
to the Synod of Dort are thus stated in the cele- 
brated Declaration of Arminius before the - 
of Holland. They comprehend the theories 
generally known by the names of supralapsariar. 
■Mil 5"i :_:.~ siriun. 

" The flkst, or Creabilitarian, or supralapsa- 
rian opinion, is : 1. That God has absolutely 
and precisely decreed to save certain parti- 
cular men by his mercy or grace : but to con- 
demn others by bis justice : and to do all this, 
without having any regard in such decree to 
righteousness or sin, obedience or disobedience, 
which could possibly exist on the part of one 



1 "It is pleasing.' ; - I : - : :-.z~. 5 -.:.-:' :.::-—. 

to trace the progress of Melancthon's opinions upon the 
subject. In the first dawning of the Reformation, he. as 
well as Luther, had been led into those metaphysical dis- 
cussions which Calvin afterward moulded into a system, 
\i '. i* : :~ r:.: . i — :-'_ !.:- -:-._ -;:. - :: :'_: 1 ir :-:::. z ::■:- 
trine. But so early as the year 1529 he renounced this 
error, and expunged the passages that contained it from the 
later editions of his Loci TheologicL Lather, who had in 
his early life maintained the same opinions, after the con- 
troversy with Erasmus about free win, never taught them ; 
and although he did not. with the candor of Melancthon, 
openly retract what he had once written, yet he bestowed 
:ie L:.-':t-: : :z_z.t-_- ;::. lj . - :'_t . -•'. . L:. -• ::' M'. .1 :• 
thon's work, containing this correction. (Preface to tke 
fir* voha^of Luther's Worix, A. D.1546.) He also scrupled 
not to assert publicly, that at the beginning of the Refor- 
mation his creed was not completely settled : (Later. Bam ft. 
Led., Xote 21 to Sermon IL ;) and in his last work of any 
importance, he is anxious to point out the qualifications 
with which all he had ever said, on the doctrine of absolute 
necessity, ought to be received f u Toe ergo, qui nunc me 
audistis, memineritis me hoc docuisse, non esse inquiren- 
dum de Prcdestinatione Dei abtconditi, sed in iUis acquies- 
- ■-- '--■ . ;.-r 7r-rL.-.-_:ur : '- -■;■":':. L ~— ■'■'• '■-- '■ '-~'-'~ 
riumTerbL . . . Haec eadem alibi quoque in meis Kbrie 
protestatus sum, et nunc etiam Tiva voce trado : Mm sum 
txcu$atui~—Op. voL vL, p. 325. 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



class of men, or the other. 2. That for the exe- 
cution of the preceding decree, God determined 
to create Adam, and all men in him, in an up- 
right state of original righteousness ; besides 
which, he also ordained them to commit sin, that 
they might thus become guilty of eternal con- 
demnation, and be deprived of original righteous- 
ness. 3. That those persons whom God has thus 
positively wished to save, he has decreed, not 
only to salvation, but also to the means which 
pertain to it ; that is, to conduct and bring them 
to faith in Christ Jesus, and to perseverance in 
that faith ; and that he also leads them to these 
results by a grace and power *hat are irresist- 
ible ; so that it is not possible for them to do 
otherwise than believe, persevere in faith, and 
be saved. 4. That to those whom, by his ab- 
solute will, God has foreordained to perdition, 
he has also decreed to deny that grace which 
is necessary and sufficient for salvation; and 
does not, in reality, confer it upon them ; so 
that they are neither placed in a possible condi- 
tion, nor in any capacity of believing, or of be- 
ing saved." 1 

The second opinion differs from the former ; 
but is still supralapsarian. It is : 

"1. That God determined within himself, by 
an eternal immutable decree, to make, accord- 
ing to his good pleasure, the smaller portion out 
of the general mass of mankind, partakers of 
his grace and glory. But, according to his 
pleasure, he passed by the greater portion of 
men, and left them in their own nature, which is 
incapable of any thing supernatural; and did 
not communicate to them that saving and super- 
natural grace by which their nature, if it still 
retained its integrity, might be strengthened; 
or by which, if it were corrupted, it might be 
restored, for a demonstration of his own liberty; 
yet after God had made these men sinners, and 
guilty of death, he punished them with death 
eternal, for a demonstration of his justice." 
"As far as we are capable of comprehending 
their scheme of reprobation, it consists of two 
acts, that of preterition, and that of predam- 
nation. Preterition is antecedent to all things, 
and to all causes which are either in the things 
themselves, or which arise out of them ; that is, 
it has no regard whatever to any sin, and only 
views man under an absolute and general aspect. 
Two means are foreordained for the execution 
of the act of preterition : dereliction in a state 



1 Tins statement of the supralapsarian and sublapsarian 
theories, as given by Arminius, might bo illustrated and 
verified by quotations from tlie older Calvinistie. divines: 
the reader will, however, find what is amply sufficient in j 
those given in Bishop Womack's Calvinistic Cabinet Un- j 
locked. 



of nature which, by itself, is incapable of every 
thing supernatural ; and the non-communication 
of supernatural grace, by which their nature, 
if in a state of integrity, might be strengthened, 
and if in a state of corruption, might be re- 
stored. Predamnation is antecedent to all 
things ; yet it does by no means exist without a 
foreknowledge of the cause of damnation. It 
views man as a sinner obnoxious to damnation in 
Adam, and as, on this account, perishing through 
the necessity of Divine justice." 

This opinion differs from the first in this, that 
it does not lay down the creation or the fall as 
a mediate cause, foreordained of God for the exe- 
cution of the decree of reprobation ; yet this 
second kind of predestination places election, 
with regard to the end, before the fall, as also 
preterition, or passing by, which is the first part 
of reprobation. ''But though the inventors of 
this scheme," says Arminius, "have been desirous 
of using the greatest precaution, lest it might 
be concluded from their doctrine that God is 
the author of sin with as much show of pro- 
bability as it is deducible from the first scheme ; 
yet we shall discover that the fall of Adam 
cannot possibly, according to their views, be 
considered in any other manner than as a neces- 
sary means for the execution of the preceding 
decree of predestination. For, first, it states 
that God determined by the decree of reproba- 
tion to deny to man that grace which was neces- 
sary for the confirmation and strengthening of 
his nature, that it might not be corrupted by 
sin; which amounts to this, that God decreed 
not to bestow that grace which was necessary to 
avoid sin ; and from this must necessarily follow 
the transgression of man, as proceeding from a 
law imposed upon him. The fall of man is, there- 
fore, a means ordained for the execution of the 
decree of reprobation. 

"2. It states the two parts of reprobation to 
be preterition and predamnation. Those two 
parts (although the latter views man as a sin- 
ner and obnoxious to justice) are, according 
to that decree, connected together by a neces- 
sary and mutual bond, and are equally ex- 
tensive ; for those whom God passed by in con- 
ferring grace are likewise damned. Indeed, no 
others are damned except those who are the sub- 
jects of this act of preterition. From this, 
therefore, it must be concluded that sin neces- 
sarily follows from the decroe of reprobation or 
preterition; because, if it were otherwise, it 
might possibly happen that a person who had 
been passed by might not commit sin, and from 
that circumstance might not become Cable to 
damnation. The second opinion on predestina- 
tion, therefore, falls into the same inconvenience 



580 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



as the first — the making God the author of sin." 
— Declaration. 

The third opinion is sublapsarian ; in which 
man, as the object of predestination, is con- 
sidered as fallen. 1 It is thus epitomized by Ar- 
minius : — 

"Because God Trilled within himself from all 
eternity to make a decree by which he might elect 
certain men and reprobate the rest, he viewed and 
considered the human race not only as created but 
likewise as fallen or corrupt; and, on that ac- 
count, obnoxious to malediction. Out of this 
lapsed and accursed state God determined to 
liberate certain individuals, and freely to save 
them by his grace, for a declaration of his 
mercy; but he resolved, in his own just judg- 
ment, to leave the rest under malediction, for a 
declaration of his justice. In both these cases 
God acts without the least consideration of re- 
pentance and faith in those whom he elects, or 
of impenitence and unbelief in those whom he 
reprobates. This opinion places the fall of man, 
not as a means foreordained for the execution 
of the decree of predestination, as before ex- 
plained, but as something that might furnish a 
proceresis or occasion for this decree of predesti- 
nation." — Declaration. 

With this opinion, however, the necessity of the 
fall is so generally connected, that it escapes the 
difficulties which environ the preceding scheme 
in words only ; for whether, in the decree of pre- 
destination, man is considered as creatable, or 

1 The question as to the object of the decrees has gone 
out, as Goodwin says, among our Calvinistic brethren into 
" endless digladiations and irreconcilable divisions : some 
of them hold that men, simply and indefinitely considered, 
are the object of these decrees. Others contend that men 
considered as yet to be created are this object. A third 
sort stands up against both the former with this notion, 
that men considered as already created and made are this 
object. A fourth disparageth the conjectures of the three 
former with this conceit, that men considered as fallen are 
this object. Another findeth a defect in the singleness or 
simplicity of all the former opinions, and compoundeth 
this in opposition to them, that men considered both as to 
be created, and as being created and as fallen, together, 
are the proper object of these troublesome decrees. A sixth 
aort formeth us yet another object, and this is man con- 
sidered as salvable or capable of being saved. A seventh, 
not liking the faint complexion of any of the former opin- 
ions, delivereth this to us as strong and healthful, that 
men considered as damnable are this object. Others yet 
again, superfancyingall the former, conceit men, considered 
as creable, or possible to be created, to be the object so 
highly contested about. A ninth party disciple the world 
with this doctrine, that men considered as labiles, or capa- 
ble of falling, are the object; and whether all the scattered 
and conflicting opinions about the objects of our brethren's 
decrees of election and reprobation are bound up in this 
bundle or not we cannot say." — Agreement of Brethren, etc. 

In modern times, these subtile distinctions have rather 
fallen into desuetude among Calvinists, and are reducible 
to a much smaller number. 



created and fallen, if a necessity be laid upon 
any part of the race to sin, and to be made mise- 
rable, whether from that which rendered the fall 
inevitable, or that which rendered the fall the 
inevitable means of corrupting their nature, and 
producing entire moral disability without relief, 
the condition of the reprobate remains substan- 
tially the same ; and the administration under 
which they are placed is equally opposed to jus- 
tice as to grace. For let us shut out all these 
fine distinctions between acts of sovereignty and 
acts of justice, preterition and predamnation, 
and fully allow the principle that all are fallen 
in Adam, in what way can even the sublapsarian 
doctrine be supported? It has two objects : to 
avoid the imputation of making God the author 
of sin, and to repel the charge of his dealing 
with his creatures unjustly. We need only take 
the latter as necessary to the argument, and 
show how utterly they fail to turn aside this 
most fatal objection drawn from the justice of 
the Divine nature and administration. 

It is an easy and plausible thing to say, in the 
usual loose and general manner of stating the 
sublapsarian doctrine, that the whole race having 
fallen in Adam, and become justly liable to eter- 
nal death, God might, without any impeachment 
of his justice, in the exercise of his sovereign 
grace, appoint some to life and salvation by 
Christ, and leave the others to their deserved 
punishment. But this is a false view of the 
case, built upon the false assumption that the 
whole race were personally and individually, in 
consequence of Adam's fall, absolutely liable to 
eternal death. That very fact, which is the 
foundation of the whole scheme, is easy to be 
refuted on the clearest authority of Scripture ; 
while not a passage can be adduced, we may 
boldly affirm, which sanctions any such doctrine. 

" The wages of sin is death." That the death 
which is the wages or penalty of sin extends to 
eternal death, we have before proved. But '/ sin 
is the transgression of the law ;" and in no other 
light is it represented in Scripture, when eternal 
death is threatened as its penalty, than as the 
act of a rational being sinning against a law 
known or knowable ; and as an act avoidable, 
and not forced or necessary. 

Taking these principles, let them be applied to 
the case before us. 

The scheme of predestination in question con- 
templates the human race as fallen in Adam. It 
must, therefore, contemplate them either as semi- 
nally in Adam, not being yet born, or as to be 
actually born into the world. 

In the former case, the only actual beings to 
be charged with sin, "the transgression of the 
law," were Adam and Eve: for the rest of the 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



181 



human race not being actually existent, were not 
capable of transgressing ; or if they were, in a 
vague sense, capable of it by virtue of the fede- 
ral character of Adam, yet then only as potential 
and not as actual beings — beings, as the logicians 
say, in posse, not in esse. Our first parents ren- 
dered themselves liable to eternal death. This 
is granted ; and had they died "in the day" they 
sinned, which, but for the introduction of a sys- 
tem of mercy and long-suffering, and the ap- 
pointment of a new kind of probation, for any 
thing that appears, they must have done, the 
human race would have perished with them, and 
the only conscious sinners would have been the 
only conscious sufferers. But then this lays no 
foundation for election and reprobation — the 
whole race would thus have perished without 
the vouchsafement of mercy to any. 

This predestination must, therefore, respect 
the human race fallen in Adam, as to be born 
actually, and to have a real as well as a potential 
existence ; and the doctrine will be, that the race 
so contemplated were made unconditionally liable 
to eternal death. In this case the decree takes 
effect immediately upon the fall, and determines 
the condition of every individual, in respect to 
his being elected from this common misery, or 
his being left in it ; and it rests its plea of justice 
upon the assumed fact that every man is abso- 
lutely liable to eternal death wholly and entirely 
for the sin of Adam, a sin to which he was not a 
consenting party, because he was not in actual 
existence. But if eternal death be the "wages 
of sin," and the sin which receives such wages 
be the transgression of a law by a voluntary 
agent, (and this is the rule as laid down by God 
himself,) then on no scriptural principle is the 
human race to be considered absolutely liable to 
personal and conscious eternal death for the sin 
of Adam ; and so the very ground assumed by 
the advocates of this theory is unfounded. 

But perhaps they will bring into consideration 
the foreknowledge of actual transgression as 
contemplated by the decree, though this notion 
is repudiated by Calvin and the rigid divines of 
his school ; but we reply to this, that either the 
sin of Adam was a sufficient reason for the actual 
infliction of a sentence of eternal death upon his 
descendants, or it was not. If not, then no man 
will be punished with eternal death as the con- 
sequence of Adam's sin, and that sentence will 
rest upon actual transgressions alone. If, then, 
this be allowed, there comes in an important in- 
quiry : Are the actual transgressions of the non- 
elect evitable or necessary ? If the former, then 
even the reprobate, without the grace of Christ, 
which they cannot have, because ho diod not for 
<them, may avoid all sin, and consequently keep 



the whole law of God, and claim, though still 
reprobates, to be justified by their works. But 
if sin be unavoidable and necessary as to them, 
in consequence both of the corrupt nature they 
have derived from Adam and the withholding of 
that sanctifying influence which can be imparted 
only to the elect, for whom alone Christ died, 
how are they to be proved justly liable, on that 
account, to eternal death ? This is the penalty 
of sin, of sin as the transgression of the law; 
but then law is given only to creatures in a state 
of trial, either to those who, from their unim- 
paired powers, are able to keep it, or to those to 
whom is made the promise of gracious assist- 
ance, upon their asking it, in order that they 
may be enabled to obey the will of God ; and in 
no case are those to whom God issues his com- 
mands supposed in Scripture to be absolutely 
incapable of obedience, much less liable to be 
punished, without remedy, for not obeying, if so 
incapacitated. This would, indeed, make the 
Divine Being a hard master, "reaping where he 
has not sown ;" which is the language only of the 
"wicked servant," and therefore to be abhorred 
by all good men. But if a point so obviously at 
variance with truth and equity be maintained, 
the doctrine comes to this, that men are consid- 
ered, in the Divine decree, as justly liable to 
eternal death, (their actual sins being foreseen,) 
because they have been placed by some previous 
decree, or higher branch of the same decree, in 
circumstances which necessitate them to sin — a 
doctrine which raises sublapsarianism into su- 
pralapsarianism itself. This is not the view 
which God gives us of his own justice ; and it is 
contradicted by every notion of justice which 
has ever obtained among men ; nor is it at all 
relieved by the subtilty of Zanchius and others, 
who distinguish between being necessitated to sin 
and being forced to sin ; and argue that because 
in sinning the reprobate follow the motions of 
their own will, they are justly punishable ; 
though in this they fulfil the predestination of 
God. The true question is, and it is not at all 
affected by such merely verbal distinctions, Can 
the reprobate do otherwise than sin, and could they 
ever do otherwise ? They sin willingly, it is said. 
This is granted ; but could they ever will other- 
wise ? The will is but one of many diseased 
powers of the soul. Is there, as to them, any 
cure for this disease of the will? According to 
this scheme, there is not; and they will from ne- 
cessity, as well as act from necessity; BO that the 
difficulty, though thrown a step baokward, re- 
mains in full force. 

In support of their notion that the penalty 
attached to original sin is eternal death, they 
allege, it is true, that the apostle Paul represents 



582 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PAET II. 



all men under condemnation in consequence of 
their connection with the first Adam ; and attri- 
butes the salvation of those who are rescued 
from the ruin, only to the obedience of the se- 
cond Adam. This is granted; but it mil not 
avail, to establish their position, that the human 
race, being all under an absolute sentence of 
condemnation to eternal death, Almighty God, in 
the exercise of his sovereign grace, elected a 
part of them to salvation, and left the remainder 
to the justice of their previous sentence. 

For, 1. Supposing that the whole human race 
were under condemnation, in their sense, this 
will not account for the punishment of those who 
reject the gospel. Their rejecting the gospel is 
represented in Scripture as the sole cause of 
their condemnation, and never merely as an ag- 
gravating cause, as though they were under an 
irreversible previous sentence of death, and that 
this refusal of the gospel only heightened a pre- 
viously certain and inevitable punishment. An 
aggravated cause of condemnation it is, but for 
this reason, that it is the rejection of a remedy, 
and an abuse of mercy, neither of which could 
have any place in a previously fixed condition 
of reprobation. If, therefore, it is true that 
"this is the condemnation, that light is come 
into the world, and men love darkness rather 
than light," we must conclude that the previous 
state of condemnation was not irremediable and 
unalterable, or this circumstance, the rejection 
of the light, or revelation of mercy in the 
gospel, could not be their condemnation. 

2. Leaving the meaning of the apostle in Rom. 
v. out of our consideration for a moment, the 
Scriptures never place the final condemnation of 
men upon the ground of Adam's offence, and 
their connection with him. AcrrAL sin forms 
the ground of every reproving charge — of every 
commination ; and, beyond all doubt, of the 
condemnatory sentence at the day of judgment. 
To what ought we to refer, as explaining the 
true cause of the eternal punishment of any 
portion of our race, but to the proceedings of 
that day, when that eternal punishment is to be 
awarded ? Of the reason of this proceeding, of 
the facts to be charged, and of the sins to be 
punished, we have very copious information in 
the Scriptures ; but these are evil works, and 
disbelief of the gospel. Nowhere is it said, or 
even hinted in the most distant manner, that 
men will be sentenced to eternal death, at that 
day, either because of Adam's sin, or because 
their connection with Adam made them inevita- 
bly corrupt in nature and unholy in conduct: 
from which effects they could not escape, be- 
cause God had from eternity resolved to deny 
them the grace necessary to this end. 



3. The true view of the apostle's doctrine in 
Rom. v. is to be ascertained, not by making 
partial extracts from his discourse, but by taking 
the argument entire, and in all its parts. 

The Calvinists assume that the apostle repre- 
sents what the penal condition of the human 
race would have been had not Christ interposed 
as our Redeemer. Here is one of their great 
and leading mistakes, for St. Paul does not 
touch this point. The Calvinist assumes that 
the whole race of men, but for the decree of 
election, would not only have come into actual 
being, but have been actually and individually 
punished for ever ; and, on this assumption, 
endeavors to justify his doctrine of the arbitrary 
selection of a part of mankind to grace and sal- 
vation, the other being left in the state in which 
they were found. Even this is contrary to other 
parts of their own system, for the reprobate are 
placed in an infinitely worse condition than had 
they been merely thus left without a share in 
Christ's redemption ; because, even according to 
Calvinistic interpreters, their condemnation is 
fearfully aggravated, and by that which they 
have no means of avoiding — by actual sin and 
unbelief. But the assumption itself is wholly 
imaginary. For the apostle speaks not of what 
the human race would have been, that is, he 
affirms nothing as to their penal condition in case 
Christ had not undertaken the office of Re- 
deemer, but he looks at their moral state and 
penal condition as the case actually stands ; in 
other words, he takes the state of man as it was 
actually established after the fall, as recorded in 
the book of Genesis. No child of Adam was 
actually born into the world until the promise 
of a Redeemer had been given, and the virtue 
of his anticipated redemption had begun to apply 
itself to the case of the fallen pair — consequent- 
ly, all mankind are born under a constitution of 
mercy, which actually existed before their birth. 
What the race would have been, had not the 
redeeming plan been brought in, the Scriptures 
nowhere tell us, except that a sentence of death, 
to be executed "in the day" in which the first 
pair sinned, was the sanction of the law under 
which they were placed ; and it is great pre- 
sumption to assume it as a truth, that they 
would have multiplied their species only for 
eternal destruction. That the race would have 
been propagated under an absolute necessity of 
sinning, and of being made eternally miserable, 
we may boldly affirm to be impossible, because 
it supposes an administration contradicted by 
every attribute which the Scriptures ascribe to 
God. What the actual state of the human race 
is, in consequence both of the fall of Adam and 
of the interposition of Christ — of the imputation 



. 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



583 



of the effects of the offence of the one, and of 
the obedience of the other, is the only point to 
■which our inquiries can go, and to which, 
indeed, the argument of the apostle is con- 
fined. 

There is, it is true, an imputation of the con- 
sequences of Adam's sin to his posterity, inde- 
pendent of their personal offences ; but we can 
only ascertain what these consequences are by 
referring to the apostle himself. One of these 
consequences is asserted explicitly, and others 
are necessarily implied in this chapter, and in 
other parts of his writings. That which is here 
explicitly asserted is, that death passed upon 
all men, though they have not sinned after the 
similitude of Adam's transgression, that is, not 
personally, and therefore this death is to be 
regarded as the result of Adam's transgression 
alone, and of our having been so far "consti- 
tuted sinners," in him, as to be liable to it. But 
then the death of which he here speaks is the 
death of the body; for his argument, that 
"death reigned from Adam to Moses," obliges 
us to understand him as speaking of the visible 
and known fact, that men in those ages died as 
to the body — since he could not intend to say 
that all the generations of men, from Adam to 
Moses, died eternally. The death of the body, 
then, is the first effect of the imputation of 
Adam's sin to his descendants, as stated in this 
chapter. A second is necessarily implied: a 
state of spiritual death — the being born into the 
world with a corrupt nature, always tending to 
actual offence. This is known to be the apostle's 
opinion, from other parts of his writings ; but 
that passage in this chapter in which it is neces- 
sarily implied, is verse 16 : " The free gift is of 
many offences unto justification." If men need 
justification of "many offences" — if all men 
need this, and that under a dispensation of help 
and spiritual healing, then the nature which 
universally leads to offences so numerous must 
be inherently and universally corrupt. A third 
consequence is a conditional liability to eternal 
death ; for that state which makes us liable to 
actual sin, makes us also liable to actual punish- 
ment. But this is conditional, not absolute ; for 
since the apostle makes the obedience of Christ 
available to the forgiveness of the "many 
offences" we may commit in consequence of the 
corrupt nature we have derived from Adam, and 
extends this to all men, they can only perish by 
their own fault. Now, beyond these three 
effects, we do not find that the apostle carries 
the consequence of Adam's sin. Of unpardoned 
"offences" eternal death is the consequence; 
but these are personal. Of the sin of Adam, 
imputed, these are the consequences: the death 



of the body, and our introduction into the world 
with a nature tending to actual offences, and a 
conditional liability to punishment. But both 
are connected with a remedy as extensive as the 
disease. For the first, the resurrection from the 
dead — for the other, the healing of grace and 
the promise of pardon; and thus, though "con- 
demnation" has passed upon '■'•all men" yet the 
free gift unto justification of life passes upon 
t( all men" also — the same general terms being 
used by the apostle in each case. The effects of 
"the free gift" are not immediate — the reign of 
death remains till the resurrection; but "in 
Christ shall all be made alive," and it is every 
man's own fault, not his fate, if his resurrection 
be not a happy one. The corrupt nature remains 
till the healing is applied by the Spirit of God ; 
but it is provided, and is actually applied, in the 
case of all those dying in infancy, as we have 
already shown; — see part ii., chap, xviii. — while 
justification and regeneration are offered, through 
specified means and conditions, to all who are of 
the age of reason and choice ; and thus the sen- 
tence of eternal death may be reversed. What 
then becomes of the premises in the sublapsa- 
rian theory, which we have been examining, that 
in Adam all men are absolutely condemned to 
eternal death ? Had Christ not undertaken hu- 
man redemption, we have no proof, no indication 
in Scripture, that for Adam's sin any but the 
actually guilty pair would have been doomed to 
this condemnation ; and though now the race 
having become actually existent, is, for this sin, 
and for the demonstration of God's hatred of sin 
in general, involved, through a federal relation 
and by an imputation of Adam's sin, in* the 
effects above mentioned, yet a universal remedy 
is provided. 

But we are not to be confined even to this 
view of the grace of God, when we speak of 
actual offences. Here the case is even strength- 
ened. The redemption of Christ extends not 
merely to the removal of the evils laid upon us 
by the imputation of Adam's transgression, but 
to those which are the effects of our own per- 
sonal choice — to the forgiveness of "many of- 
fences," upon our repentance and faith, however 
numerous and aggravated they may be — to the 
bestowing of "abundance of grace and of the 
gift of righteousness;" and not merely to the 
reversal of the sentence of death, but to our 
"reigning in life by Jesus Clmst:" so that 
"where sin abounded, grace did much more 
abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, 
even so might grace reign, through righteous- 
ness, unto eternal ///V — which phrase, in the 
New Testament, does never mean less than the 
glorification of the bodies and souls of believers 



584 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



in the kingdom of God, and in the presence and 
enjoyment of the eternal glory of Christ. 

So utterly without foundation is the leading 
assumption in the sublapsarian scheme, that the 
decree of election and reprobation finds the hu- 
man race in a state of common and absolute 
liability to personal eternal punishment; and 
that, by making a sovereign selection of a part 
of mankind, God does no injustice to the rest by 
passing them by. The word of God asserts no 
such doctrine as the absolute condemnation of 
the race to eternal death, merely for Adam's 
offence ; and if it did, the merciful result of the 
obedience of Christ is declared to be not only as 
extensive as the evil, in respect of the number 
of persons so involved, but in "grace" to be 
more abotmding. Finally, this assumption falls 
short of the purpose for which it is made, be- 
cause the mere "passing by" of a part of the 
race already, according to them, under eternal 
condemnation, and which they contend inflicts 
no injustice upon them, does not account for 
their additional and aggravated punishment for 
doing what they had never the natural or 
dispensed power of avoiding — breaking God's 
holy laws, and rejecting his gospel. Upon a 
close examination of the sublapsarian scheme, 
it will be found, therefore, to involve all the 
leading difficulties of the Calvinistic theory, as 
it is broadly exhibited by Calvin himself. In 
both cases reprobation is grounded on an act of 
mere will, resting on no reason : it respects not 
in either, as its primary cause, the demerit of 
the creature ; and it punishes eternally without 
personal guilt, arising either from actual sin or 
from the rejection of the gospel. Both unite in 
making sin a necessary result of the circumstances 
in which God has placed a great part of mankind, 
which by no effort of theirs can be avoided, or, 
what is the same thing, which they shall never 
be disposed to avoid; and how either of these 
schemes, in strict consequence, can escape the 
charge of making God the author of sin, which 
the Synod of Dort acknowledges to be "blas- 
phemy," is inconceivable. For how does it alter 
the case of the reprobate, whether the fall of 
Adam himself was necessitated, or whether he 
acted freely? They, at least, are necessitated 
to sin : they come into the world under a neces- 
sitating constitution, which is the result of an 
act to which they gave no consent; and their 
case differs nothing, except in circumstances 
which do not alter its essential character, from 
that of beings immediately created by God with a 
nature necessarily producing sinful acts, and to 
counteract which there is no remedy: a case 
which few have been bold enough to suppose. 

The different views of the doctrine of predes- 



[PART n. 

tination, as stated above, greatly agitated the 
Protestant world, from the time of Calvin to the 
sitting of the celebrated Synod of Dort, whose 
decisions on this point, having been received as 
a standard by several Churches and by many 
theologians, may next be properly introduced; 
although, after what has been said, they call 
only for brief remark. 

"The Judgment of the Synod of the Reformed 
Belgic Churches," to which many divines of note 
of other Preformed Churches were admitted, "on 
the articles controverted in the Belgic Churches," 
was drawn up in Latin, and read in the great 
church at Dort, in the year 1619; and a transla- 
tion into English of this "Judgment," with the 
synod's "Rejection of Errors," was published in 
the same year. [London, printed by John Bill.) 
This translation having become scarce, or not 
being known to Mr. Scott, he published a new 
translation in 1818, from which, as being in more 
modern English, and, as far as I have compared 
it, unexceptionably faithful, I shall take the 
extracts necessary to exhibit the synod's decision 
on the point before us. 

Art. 1. "As all men have sinned in Adam, and 
have become exposed to the curse and eternal 
death, God would have done no injustice to any 
one if he had determined to leave the whole 
human race under sin and the curse, and to con- 
demn them on account of sin ; according to the 
words of the apostle, 'all the world is become 
guilty before God.' Rom. iii, 19. 'All have 
sinned, and come short of the glory of God,' 23 ; 
and 'the wages of sin is death.' Rom. vi. 23." 

The synod here assumes that all men, in con- 
sequence of Adam's sin, have become exposed to 
the curse of "eternal death;" and they quote 
passages to prove it, which manifestly prove 
nothing to the point. The first two speak of 
actual sin; the third, of the wages, or penalty 
of actual sin, as the context of each will show. 
The very texts adduced show how totally at a loss 
the synod was for any thing like scriptural evi- 
dence of this strange doctrine ; which, however, 
as we have seen, would not, if true, help them 
through their difficulties, seeing it leaves the 
punishment of the reprobate for actual sin, and 
for disbelief of the gospel, still unaccounted for 
on every principle of justice. 

Art. 4. "They who believe not the gospel, on 
them the wrath of God remaineth ; but those who 
receive it, and embrace the Saviour Jesus with a 
true and living faith, are through him delivered 
from the wrath of God, and receive the gift of 
everlasting life." 

To this there is nothing to object: only it is to 
be observed that those who are not elected to 
eternal life out of the common mass, are not, 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



585 



according to this article, merely left and passed 
by, but are brought under an obligation of be- 
lieving the gospel, which nevertheless is no "good 
news" to them, and in which they have no inte- 
rest at all; and yet, in default of believing, "the 
wrath of God abideth upon them." Thus there 
is, in fact, no alternative for them. They cannot 
believe, or else it would follow that those repro- 
bated might be saved; and therefore the "wrath 
of God abideth on them," for no fault of 
their own. This, however, the next article 
denies. 

Art. 5. " The cause or fault of this unbelief, 
as also of all other sins, is by no means in God, 
but in man. But faith in Jesus Christ, and sal- 
vation by him, is the free gift of God. ' By grace 
are ye saved through faith, and that not of your- 
selves : it is the gift of God.' Eph. ii. 8. In like 
manner, 'it is given to you to believe in Christ.' 
Phil. i. 29." 

These passages would be singular proofs that 
the fault of unbelief is in men themselves, did 
not the next article explain the connection be- 
tween them and the premises in the minds of the 
synodists. A much more appropriate text, but 
a rather difficult one on their theory, would have 
been, "Ye have not, because ye ask not." 

Art. 6. " That some, in time, have faith given 
them by God, and others have it not given, pro- 
ceeds from his eternal decree; for '■'known unto 
God are all his works from the beginning of the 
world.' Acts xv. 18. According to which decree, 
he gradually softens the hearts of the elect, how- 
ever hard, and he bends them to believe ; but the 
non-elect he leaves, in just judgment, to their own 
perversity and hardness. And here, especially, 
a deep discrimination, at the same time both 
merciful and just — a discrimination of men 
equally lost, opens itself to us ; or that decree 
of election and reprobation which is revealed in 
the word of God : which, as perverse, impure, 
and unstable persons do wrest to their own de- 
struction, so it affords ineffable consolation to 
holy and pious souls." 

To this article the synod appends no Scripture 
proofs : which, if the doctrines it contains were, 
as the synodists say, "revealed in the word of 
God," would not have been wanting. The pas- 
sage which stands in the middle of the article 
could scarcely be intended as a proof, since it 
would equally apply to any other doctrine which 
does not shut out the prescience of God. The 
doctrine of the two articles just quoted will be 
seen by taking them together. The position laid 
down is, that "tho fault" of not believing the 
gospel is "in man." The alleged proof of this 
is, that faith is the gift of Cod. But this only 
proves that the fault of not believing is in man, 



just as it allows that God, the giver of faith, is 
willing to give faith to those who have it not, 
and that they will not receive it. In no other 
way can it prove the faultiness of man ; for to 
what end are we taught that faith is the gift of 
God in order to prove the fault of not believing 
to be in man, if God will not bestow the gift, 
and if man cannot believe without such bestow- 
ment? This, however, is precisely what the 
synod teaches. It argues that faith is the gift 
of God: that it is only given to "some;" and 
that this proceeds from God's "eternal decree." 
So that, by virtue of this decree, he gives faith 
to some, and withholds it from others, who are 
thereupon left without the power of believing ; 
and for this act of God, therefore, and not for a 
fault of their own, they are punished eternally. 
And yet the synod calls this a "just judgment, 
affording ineffable consolation to holy souls," and 
a "doctrine only rejected by the perverse and 
impure !" 

As we have already quoted and commented on 
the 7th and 8th articles on election, we proceed to 

Art. 10. "Now the cause of this gratuitous 
election is the sole good pleasure of God; not 
consisting in this, that he elected into the condi- 
tion of salvation certain qualities or human 
actions, from all that were possible ; but in that, 
out of the common multitude of sinners, he took 
to himself certain persons as his peculiar pro- 
perty, according to the Scripture, ' for the child- 
ren being not born, neither having done any good 
or evil, etc., it is said (that is, to Rebecca) the 
elder shall serve the younger : even as it is writ- 
ten, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' 
Rom. ix. 11-13. 'And as many as were ordained 
to eternal life believed.' Acts xiii. 48." 

Thus the ground of this election is resolved 
wholly into the "good pleasure of God," (est 
solum Dei beneplacitum,) "having no respect as 
to its reason or condition, though it may have 
as to its end, to any foreseen faith, obedience of 
faith, or any other good quality and disposition," 
as it is expressed in the preceding article. Let 
us, then, see how the case stands with the repro- 
bate. 

Art. 15. "Moreover, Holy Scripture doth 
illustrate and commend to us this eternal and 
free grace of our election, in this more espe- 
cially, that it doth also testify all men not to be 
elected; but that some arc non-elect, or />assn! by 
in the eternal election of God: whom truly God, 
from most free, just, irreprehensible, ami immu- 
table good pleasure, decreed to leave in the con- 
mon misery into which they hail, by their own 
fault, cast themselves, and not to bestow on them 
living faith} and the grace of conversion j but 
having left them in their own wavs, and under 



586 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



just judgment, at length, not only on account of 
their unbelief, but also of all their other sins, to 
condemn, and eternally punish them for the 
manifestation of his own justice. And this is 
the decree of reprobation which determines that 
God is in nowise the author of sin ; (which, to 
be thought of, is blasphemy ; ) but a tremendous, 
irreprehensible, just Judge and avenger." 

Thus we hear the synodists confessing, in the 
same breath in which they plausibly represent 
reprobation as a mere passing by and leaving men 
"in the common misery" that the reprobate are 
punishable for their ''unbelief and other sins," 
and so this decree imports, therefore, much more 
than leaving men in the '■'■common misery." For 
this " common misery" can mean no more than 
the misery common to all mankind by the sin of 
Adam, into which his fall plunged the elect, as 
well as the reprobate; and to be "left" in it, 
must be understood of being left to the sole 
consequences of that offence. Now, were it even 
to be conceded that these consequences extend 
to personal and conscious eternal punishment, which 
has been disproved ; yet, even then, their decree 
has a much more formidable aspect, terrible and 
repulsive as this alone would be. For we are 
expressly told that God not only "decreed to 
leave them in this misery," but "not to bestow 
on them living faith, and the grace of conver- 
sion ;" and then to condemn, and eternally 
punish them, "on account of their unbelief," 
which by their own showing these reprobates 
could not avoid; and for "all their other sins," 
which they could not but commit, since it was 
"decreed" to deny to them "the grace of conver- 
sion." Thus the case of the reprobate is deeply 
aggravated beyond what it could have been if 
they had been merely "left in the common 
misery;" and the synod and its followers have 
therefore the task of showing how the punishing 
of men for what they never could avoid, and 
which it was expressly decreed they never should 
avoid,, "is a manifestation of the justice" of 
Almighty God. 

From the above extracts it will be seen how little 
reason Mr. Scott had to reprove Dr. Heylin with 
"bearing false witness against his neighbor," 
(Scotfs Translation of the Articles of the Synod of 
Dort, p. 120,) on account of having given a sum- 
mary of the eighteen articles of the synod, on pre- 
destination, in the following words : " That God, 
by an absolute decree, hath elected to salvation 
a very small number of men, without any regard 
to their faith and obedience whatsoever ; and 
secluded from saving grace all the rest of man- 
kind, and appointed them by the same decree to 
eternal damnation, without any regard to their 
infidelity and impenitency." Whether Mr. Scott 



understood this controversy or not, Dr. Heylin 
shows, by this summary, that he neither misap- 
prehended it, nor bore "false witness against his 
neighbor," in so stating it; for as to the stir 
made about his rendering "multitudo" a very 
small number, this verbal inaccuracy affects not 
the merits of the doctrine ; and neither the synod- 
ists, nor any of their followers, ever allowed 
the elect to be a very great number. The num- 
ber, less or more, alters not the doctrine. With 
respect to the elect, the synod confesses that the 
decree of election has no regard, as a cause, to 
faith and obedience foreseen in the persons so 
elected ; and with respect to the reprobate, al- 
though it is not so explicit in asserting that the 
decree of reprobation has no regard to their infi- 
delity and impenitency, the foregoing extracts 
cannot possibly be interpreted into any other 
meaning. For it is manifestly in vain for the 
synodists to attempt, in the 15th article, to gloss 
over the doctrine, by saying that men "cast them- 
selves into the common misery by their own fault," 
when they only mean that they were cast into it 
by Adam and by his fault. If they intended to 
ground their decree of reprobation on foresight 
of the personal offences of the reprobate, they 
would have said this in so many words ; but the 
materials of which the synod was composed for- 
bade such a declaration ; and they themselves, 
in the "Rejection of Errors," appended to their 
chapter "De Divina Prmdestinatione," place in this 
list "the errors of those who teach that God has 
not decreed, from his own mere Just will, to leave 
any in the fall of Adam, and in the common state 
of sin and damnation, or to pass them by in the 
communication of grace necessary to faith and 
conversion;" quoting as a proof of this dogma, 
" He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, 
and whom he will he hardeneth," and giving no 
intimation that they understand this passage in 
any other sense than Calvin and his immediate 
followers have uniformly affixed to it. What Dr. 
Heylin has said is here, then, abundantly estab- 
lished ; for if the decree of reprobation is to be 
referred to God's "mere will," and if its opera- 
tion is to leave the reprobate "in the fall of 
Adam," and "to pass them by in that communi- 
cation of grace which is necessary to faith and 
conversion," the decree itself is that which pre- 
vents both penitence and faith, and stands upon 
some other ground than the personal infidelity 
and impenitency of the reprobate, and cannot 
have "any regard" to either, except as a part 
of its own dread consequences ; a view of the 
matter which the supralapsarians would readily 
admit. How their doctrine, so stated by them- 
selves, could give the synod any reason to com- 
plain, as they do in their conclusion, that thej 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



587 



were slandered by their enemies when they were 
charged with teaching " that God, by the bare 
and mere determination of his will, without any 
respect of the sin of any man, predestinated and 
created the greatest part of the world to eternal 
damnation," will not be very obvious ; or why 
they should startle at the same doctrine in one 
dress which they themselves have but clothed in 
another. The fact is, that the divisions in the 
synod obliged the leading members, who were 
chiefly stout supralapsarians, to qualify their 
doctrine somewhat in words, while substantially 
it remained the same ; but what they lost by 
giving up a few words in one place, they secured 
by retaining them in another, or by resorting to 
subtilties not obvious to the commonalty. Of 
this subtilty, the apparent disclaimer just quoted 
is in proof. When they seem to deny that God 
reprobates without any respect to the sin of any 
man, they may mean that he had respect to the sin 
of Adam, or to sin in Adam ; for they do not deny 
that they reject personal sin as a ground of repro- 
bation. Even when they appear to allow that 
God had, in reprobation, respect to the corrup- 
tion of human nature, or even to personal trans- 
gression, they never confess that God had respect 
to sin, in either sense, as the impulsive or merito- 
rious cause of reprobation. But the greatest 
subtilty remains behind ; for the synod says 
nothing, in this complaint and apparent rejec- 
tion of the doctrine charged upon them by their 
adversaries, but what all the supralapsarian di- 
vines would say. These, as we have seen, make 
a distinction between the two parts of the decree 
of reprobation, preterition and predamnation, 
the latter of which must always have respect to 
actual sin; and hence arises their distinction be- 
tween "destruction" and "damnation." For they 
say, it is one thing to predestinate and create to 
damnation, and another to predestinate and create 
to destruction. Damnation, being the sentence of 
a judge, must be passed in consideration of sin ; 
but destruction may be the act of a sovereign, and 
so inflicted by right of dominion. 1 The synod 
would have disallowed something substantial, had 
they denied that God created any man to destruc- 
tion, without respect to sin, and were safe enough 
in allowing that he has created none, without 
respect to sin, unto damnation. But among the 
errors on predestination which they formally 
"reject," and which they place under nine dis- 

1 " Non solent enim supralapsarii dicoro Dcum quosdam 
ad aetcrnam damnationem creas.se et prajdestinasse ; eo quod 
dainaatio actum judicialem designet, ac proinde peccati 
meritum prajsupponat ; sod malunt uti voce exitii, ad quod 
Deus, tanquam absolutus Dominua, jus habeat oreandj et 
destinandi quoscunque voluerit." (Curcella;us Be Jure Dei, 
etc., cap. x. See also Bishop Womack's Caloinistic Cabinet, 
etc., p. Mi.) 



tinct heads — thus attempting to guard the pure 
and orthodox doctrine as to this point on the 
right hand and on the left — they are careful not 
to condemn the supralapsarian doctrine, or to 
place even its highest branches among the doc- 
trines disavowed. 

The doctrine of the Church of Scotland, on 
these topics, is expressed in the answers to the 
12th and 13th questions of its large catechism : 
"God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts 
of the counsel of his will ; whereby, from all 
eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangea- 
bly foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in 
time, especially concerning angels and men." — 
"God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out 
of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious 
grace to be manifested in due time, hath elected 
some angels to glory ; and, in Christ, hath chosen 
some men to eternal life and the means thereof; 
and also, according to his sovereign power and 
the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (where- 
by he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he 
pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the 
rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin in- 
flicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice:" 

In this general view there appears a strict 
conformity to the opinions of Calvin, as before 
given. All things are the subjects of decree 
and preordination : election and reprobation are 
grounded upon the mere will of God : election is 
the choosing of men, not only to salvation, but to 
the means of salvation; from which the repro- 
bates are therefore excluded, as passed by, 
and foreordained to wrath ; and yet, though the 
"means of salvation" are never put within their 
reach, this wrath is inflicted upon them "for their 
sin" and to the praise of God's justice ! The 
Church of Scotland adopts, also, the notion that 
decrees of election and reprobation extend to 
angels as well as men ; a pretty certain proof 
that the framers of this catechism were not sub- 
lapsarians, for as to angels, there could be no 
election out of a, "common misery;" and with 
Calvin, therefore, they choose to refer the whole 
to the arbitrary pleasure and will of God. "The 
angels who stood in their integrity, Paul calls 
elect; if their constancy rested on the Divine 
pleasure, the defection of others argues their hav- 
ing been forsaken; (dereliclos ;) a fact for which 
no other cause can be assigned than the repro- 
bation hidden in the secret counsel of Con." 

The ancient Church of the Vaudois, in the 
valleys of Piedmont, have a confession ol' faith. 
bearing date A. D. 1120; and which, probably, 
transmits the opinions of much more ancient 
times. The only article which bears upon the 
extent of the death of ("mist is drawn up, as 
might he expected in an age ol' the Church when 



588 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



it was received, as a matter almost entirely un- 
disputed, that Christ died for the salvation of 
the whole world. Art. 8: "Christ is our life, 
truth, peace, and righteousness ; also our pastor, 
advocate, sacrifice, and priest, who died for the 
salvation of all those that believe, and is risen 
again for our justification." 

The Confession of Faith published by the 
Churches of Piedmont in 1655, bears a different 
character. In the year 1630, a plague which 
was introduced from France into these valleys, 
swept off all the ministers but two, and with 
them ended the race of their ancient barbes, or 
pastors. (See "Historical Defence, etc., of the 
Waldenses," by Sims.) The Vaudois were then 
under the necessity of applying to the reformed 
Churches of France and Geneva for a supply of 
ministers ; and with them came in the doctrine 
of Calvin in an authorized form. It was thus 
embodied in the Confession of 1655. Art. 11 : 
"God saves from corruption and condemnation 
those whom he has chosen from the foundation 
of the world, not for any disposition, faith, or 
holiness that he foresaw in them, but of his 
mere mercy in Jesus Christ his Son : passing by 
all the rest, according to the irreprehensible rea- 
son of his free will and justice." The last clause 
is expressed in the very words of Calvin. 

The 12th article in the Confession of the French 
Churches, 1558, is, in substance, Calvinistic, 
though brief and guarded in expression : "We 
believe, that out of this general corruption and 
condemnation in which all men are plunged, God 
doth deliver them whom he hath, in his eternal 
and unchangeable counsel, chosen of his mere 
goodness and mercy, through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, without any consideration of their works, 
leaving the rest in their sins, and damnable es- 
tate, that he may show forth in them his justice, 
as, in the elect, he doth most illustriously de- 
clare the riches of his mercy. For one is not 
better than another, until such time as God doth 
make the difference, according to his unchange- 
able purpose which he hath determined in Jesus 
Christ before the creation of the world." (Quick's 
"Synodicon in Gallia Reformata") This confes- 
sion was drawn up by Calvin himself, though 
not in language so strong as he usually employs ; 
which, perhaps, indicates that the majority of 
the French pastors were inclined to the sublap- 
sarian theory, and did not, in every point, coin- 
cide with their great master. 

The Westminster Confession gives the senti- 
ments both of the English Presbyterian Churches, 
and the Church of Scotland. 1 Chapter iii. treats 
of the predestination. 

i The title of it is : " The Confession of Faith agreed upon 
by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the as- 



"By the decree of God, for the manifestation 
of his glory, some men and angels are predestina- 
ted unto everlasting life, and others foreordained 
to everlasting death. These angels and men thus 
predestinated and foreordained, are particularly 
and unchangeably designed ; and their number is 
so certain and definite, that it cannot either be in- 
creased or diminished. Those of mankind that 
are predestinated unto life, God, before the 
foundation of the world was laid, according to 
his eternal and immutable purpose, and the se- 
cret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath 
chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of 
his mere free grace and love, without any fore- 
sight of faith and good works, or perseverance 
in either of them, or any other thing in the 
creature as conditions or causes moving him 
thereunto ; and all to the praise of his glorious 
grace. As God hath appointed the elect unto 
glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free 
purpose of his will, foreordained all the means 
thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, 
being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; 
are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his 
Spirit working in due season; are justified, 
adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, 
through faith unto salvation ; neither are any 
other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justi- 
fied, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect 
only. The rest of mankind God was pleased, 
according to the unsearchable counsel of his own 
will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy 
as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power 
over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them 
to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise 
of his glorious justice." 

Here we have no attempts at qualification, after 
the example of the Synod of Dort ; but the whole 
is conformed to the higher and most unmitigated 
parts of the Institutes of Calvin. By the side of 
the Presbyterian Confession, the seventeenth ar- 
ticle of the Church of England must appear ex- 
ceedingly moderate; and, as to Calvinistic predesti- 
nation, to say the least, equivocal. It never gave 
satisfaction to the followers of Calvin, who had put 
his stronger impress upon the Augustinism which 
floated in the minds of many of the divines of 
the reformation, who generally, as appears from 
the earliest Protestant confessions and cate- 
chisms, 2 thought fit to recommend that either 

sistance of Commissioners from the Chnrch of Scotland." 
The date of the ordinance for convening this assembly is 
1643. The Confession was approved by the General Assem- 
bly of the Church of Scotland in 1647. 

2 The Augsburg Confession says, "Non est hie opus dis- 
putationibus de praedestinatione et similibus. Nam pro- 
missio est universalis et nihil detrahit operibus, sed exsus- 
citat ad fidem et vere bona opera." — Art 20. And the 
Saxon Confession is equally indifferent to the subject: 



CH. XXVIII.] 



these points should not be touched at all, or so 
speak of them as to admit great latitude of in- 
terpretation, and that, probably, in charitable 
respect to the varying opinions of the theologians 
and Churches of the day. It is of the perfected 
form of Calvinism that Arminius speaks, when 
he says, " It neither agrees nor corresponds with 
the harmony of those confessions which were 
published together in one volume at Geneva, in 
the name of the reformed and Protestant 
Churches. If that harmony of confessions be 
faithfully consulted, it will appear that many of 
them do not speak in the same manner concern- 
ing predestination : that some of them only in- 
cidentally mention it, and that they evidently 
never once touch upon those heads of the doc- 
trine which are now in great repute, and par- 
ticularly urged in the preceding scheme of pre- 
destination. The confessions of Bohemia, Eng- 
land, and Wurtemburg, and the first Helvetian 
Confession, and that of the four cities of Stras- 
burg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, make 
no mention of this predestination: those of 
Basle and Saxony only take a very cursory no- 
tice of it in three words. The Augustan Con- 
fession speaks of it in such a manner as to induce 
the Genevan editors to think that some annota- 
tion was necessary on their part to give us a 
previous warning. The last of the Helvetian 
Confessions, to which a great portion of the re- 
formed Churches have expressed their assent, 
likewise speaks of it in such a strain as makes 
me very desirous to see what method can possibly 
be adopted to give it any accordance with that 
doctrine of the predestination which I have stated. 
Without the least contention or cavilling, it may 
be very properly made a subject of doubt whether 
this doctrine agrees with the Belgic Confession 
and the Heidelberg Catechism.'' — Nichol's Works 
of Arminius, vol. i., p. 557. 

I have given these extracts to show that no- 
thing in the preceding discussion has been as- 
sumed as Calvinism, but what is to be found in 
the writings of the founder of the system, and 
in the confessions and creeds of Churches which 
professedly admitted his doctrine. 

With respect to modifications of this system, 
the sublapsarian theory has been already con- 
sidered, and shown to be substantially the same 
as the system which it professes to mitigate and 
improve. We may now adduce another modified 
theory ; but shall, upon examination, find it but 
little, if at all, removed out of the reach of those 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 



589 



objections which have been stated to the various 
shades of the predestinating scheme already 
noticed. 

That scheme is in England usually called Bax- 
terianism, from the celebrated Baxter, who ad- 
vocated it in his Treatise of Universal Redemption, 
and in his Metliodus Theologice. He was, how- 
ever, in this theory but the disciple of certain 
divines of the French Protestant Church, whose 
opinions created many dissensions abroad, and 
produced so much warmth of opposition from 
the Calvinistic party, that they were obliged first 
to engage in the hopeless attempt of softening 
down the harsher aspects of the doctrine of Cal- 
vin and the Synod of Dort, in order to keep 
themselves in countenance : then to attack the 
Arminians with asperity, in order to purge them- 
selves of the suspicion of entire heterodoxy in a 
Calvinistic Church ; and, finally, to withdraw 
from the contest. The Calvinism of the Church 
of France was, however, much mitigated in sub- 
sequent times by the influence of the writings 
of these theologians — a result which also has 
followed in England from the labors of Baxter, 
who, though he formed no separate school, has had 
numerous followers in the Calvinistic Churches 
of this country. The real author of the scheme, 
at least in a systematized form, was Camero, 
who taught divinity at Saumur, and it was un- 
folded and defended by his disciple Amyraldus, 
to whom Curcellseus replied in the work from 
which I have above made some quotations. 
Baxter says, in his preface to his Saints' Rest : 
"The middle way which Camero, Crocius, Mar- 
tinius, Amyraldus, Davenant, with all the divines 
of Britain and Bremen, in the Synod of Dort, go, 
I think is nearest the truth of any that I know 
who have written on these points."' 1 This sys- 
tem he labored powerfully to defend, and his 
works on this subject, although his system is 
often spoken of, being but little known to the 
general reader, the following exhibition of this 
scheme, from his work entitled " Universal Re- 
demption," may be acceptable. It makes great 
concessions to that view of the scriptural doc- 
trine which we have attempted to establish ; but, 
for want of going another step, it is, perhaps, 
the most inconsistent theory to which the varied 
attempts to modify Calvinism have given rise. 
Baxter first differs from the majority of Calvin- 
ists, though not from all, in his statement of 
the doctrine of satisfaction : 



"Nonaddimus hie qurcstiones do proedestinationo sou do 
eloctionc; sed deducimus omnes lectores ad verbum Dei, et 
jubemue ut voluntatcm Dei verbo ipsius discant sieut 
/Ktrniiis Pater rxprcssa voce proecipit, himc audite." — Art. 
(2k Remiss. I'ccc. 



1 Of Camero, or Camoron, Amyraldus, CurcellffiUS, and 
tho controversy in which tiicv ware engaged, Bee an In- 
teresting account in Nichol's A.rminianism and Calvinism 
Compared, vol, i., appendix 0; a work of elaborate re* 
search, and abounding with the most curious Inforx 
as to the opinions and history of those times, 



590 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



" Christ's sufferings "were not & fulfilling cf the 
law's threatening, (though he bore its curse ma- 
terially,') but a satisfaction for our not fulfilling 
the precept, and to prevent God's fulfilling the 
threatening on us." 

"Christ paid not, therefore, the idem, but the 
tantundem, or cequivalens ; not the very debt which 
we owed and the law required, but the value; 
(else it were not strictly satisfaction, which is red- 
ditio cequivalentis ;) and (it being improperly 
called the paying of a debt, but properly a suffer- 
ing for the guilty) the idem is nothing but suppli- 
cium delinquentis. In criminals, dum alius solvet 
simul aliud solvitur. The law knoweth no vicarius 
pcence; though the law -maker may admit it, as 
he is above law: else there were no place for 
pardon, if the proper debt be paid and the law 
not relaxed but fulfilled." 

" Christ did neither obey nor suffer in any man's 
stead, by a strict, proper representation of his per- 
son in point of law ; so as that the law should 
take it as done or suffered by the party himself. 
But only as a third person, as a mediator, he vol- 
untarily bore what else the sinner should have 
borne." 

" To assert the contrary, (especially as to par- 
ticular persons considered in actual sin,) is to 
overthrow all Scripture theology, and to intro- 
duce all Antinomianism ; to overthrow all possi- 
bility of pardon, and assert justification before 
we sinned or were born, and to make ourselves to 
have satisfied God. 

"Therefore we must not say that Christ died 
nostro loco, so as to personate us, or represent our 
persons in law sense ; but only to bear what else 
we must have borne." — Universal Redemption, 
pp. 48-51. 

This system explicitly asserts that Christ made 
a satisfaction by his death equally for the sins 
of every man ; and thus Baxter essentially differs 
from the rigid Calvinists, and also from the 
sublapsarians, who, though they may allow that 
the reprobate derive some benefits from Christ's 
death, so that there is a vague sense in which he 
may be said to have died for all men, yet they, 
of course, deny to such the benefit of Christ's 
satisfaction or atonement, which Baxter contends 
for. 

"Neither the law, whose curse Christ bore, 
nor God, as the legislator to be satisfied, did dis- 
tinguish between men as elect and reprobate, or 
as believers and unbelievers, de presenti vel de 
futuro ; and to impose upon Christ, or require 
from him satisfaction for the sins of one sort 
more than of another, but for mankind in 
general. 

"God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, 
now dealeth with no man upon the mere rigorous 



[part n. 

terms of the first law, {Obey perfectly and live, else 
thou shall die,) but giveth to all much mercy, 
which, according to the tenor of that violated 
law, they could not receive, and calleth them to 
repentance, in order to their receiving further 
mercy offered them. And accordingly he will 
not judge any at last according to the mere law 
of works, but as they have obeyed or not obeyed 
his conditions or terms of grace. 

"It was not the sins of the elect only, but of 
all mankind fallen, which lay upon Christ satis- 
fying. And to assert the contrary, injuriously 
diminisheth the honor of his sufferings ; and hath 
other desperate ill consequences." — Universal 
Redemption, pp. 36, 37, and 50. 

The benefits derived to all men equally, from 
the satisfaction of Christ, he thus states : — 

"All mankind, immediately upon Christ's satis- 
faction, are redeemed and delivered from that 
legal necessity of perishing which they were 
under, (not by remitting sin or punishment di- 
rectly to ihem, but by giving up God's jus puni- 
endi into the hands of the Redeemer; nor by 
giving any right directly to them, but, per meram 
resultantiam, this happy change is made for them 
in their relation, upon the said remitting of 
God's right and advantage of justice against 
them,) and they are given up to the Redeemer as 
their owner and ruler, to be dealt with upon 
terms of mercy which have a tendency to their 
recovery. 

"God the Father and Christ the Mediator 
hath freely, without any prerequisite condition 
on man's part, enacted a law of grace of uni- 
versal extent, in regard of its tenor, by which he 
giveth, as a deed of gift, Christ himself, with 
all his following benefits which he bestoweth; 
(as benefactor and legislator;) and this to all 
alike, without excluding any; upon condition 
they believe, and accept the offer. 

" By this law, testament, or covenant, all men 
are conditionally pardoned, justified, and recon- 
ciled to God already, and no man absolutely; 
nor doth it make a difference, nor take notice of 
any, till men's performance or non-performance 
of the condition makes a difference. 

"In the new law Christ hath truly given him- 
self, with a conditional pardon, justification, and 
conditional right to salvation, to all men in the 
world, without exception." — Universal Redemption, 
p. 36, etc. 

On the case of the heathen : 

"Though God hath been pleased less clearly 
to acquaint us on what terms he dealeth with 
those that hear not of Christ, yet it being most 
clear and certain that he dealeth with them on 
terms of general grace, and not on the terms 
of the rigorous law of works, this may evince 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



591 



them to be the Mediator's subjects, and re- 
deemed. 

" Though, it be very difficult, and not very- 
necessary, to know what is the condition pre- 
scribed to them that hear not of Christ, or on 
what terms Christ will judge them, yet to me 
it seems to be the covenant made with Adam, 
Gen. iii. 15, which they are under, requiring 
their taking God to be their only God and Re- 
deemer, and to expecting mercy from him and 
loving him above all, as their end and chief 
good; and repenting of sin, and sincere obedi- 
ence, according to the laws promulgated to them, 
to lead them farther. 

"All those that have not heard of Christ, have 
yet much mercy which they receive from him, 
and is the fruit of his death; according to the 
well or ill using whereof it seems possible that 
God will judge them. 

"It is a course to blind, and not to inform 
men, to lay the main stress in the doctrine of 
redemption upon our uncertain conclusions of 
God's dealing with such as never heard of Christ, 
seeing all proof is per notoria ; and we must re- 
duce points uncertain to the certain, and not the 
certain to the uncertain, in our trial." — Univer- 
sal Redemption, pp. 37, 38, and 54. 

In arguments drawn from the consequences 
which follow the denial of "universal satisfac- 
tion," Baxter is particularly terse and conclusive: 

' ' The doctrine which denieth universal satis- 
faction hath all these inconveniences and absurd 
consequents following ; therefore it is not of God, 
nor true. 

"It either denieth the universal promise or 
conditional gift of pardon and life to all men if 
they will believe, and then it overturneth the 
substance of Christ's law and gospel promise ; 
or else it maketh God to give conditionally to all 
men a pardon and salvation which Christ never 
purchased, and without his dying for men. 

"It maketh God either not to offer the effects 
of Christ's satisfaction (pardon and life) to all, 
but only to the elect ; or else to offer that which 
is not, and which he cannot give. 

"It denieth the direct object of faith, and of 
God's offer, that is Christum qui satisfecit, (a Christ 
that hath satisfied.) 

" It either denieth the non-elect's deliverance 
from that flat necessity of perishing, which 
came on man for sinning against the first law, 
by its remediless, unsuspended obligation ; (and 
so neither Christ, gospel, nor mercy had ever 
any nature of a remedy to them, nor any more 
done toward their deliverance than toward the 
deliverance of the devils;) or else it maketh this 
deliverance and remedy to be without satisfaction 
by Christ for them. 



" It either denieth that God commandeth all to 
believe, (but only the elect,) or else maketh 
God to assign them a deceiving object for their 
faith, commanding them to believe in that which 
never was, and to trust in that which would de- 
ceive them if they did trust it. 

"It maketh God either to have appointed and 
commanded the non-elect to use no means at 
all for their recovery and salvation, or else to 
have appointed them means which are all utterly 
useless and insufficient, for want of a prerequisite 
cause without them ; yea, which imply a contra- 
diction. 

"It maketh the true and righteous God to 
make promises of pardon and salvation to all 
men on condition of believing, which he neither 
would nor could perform, (for want of such 
satisfaction to his justice,) if they did believe. 

"It denieth the true sufficiency of Christ's 
death for the pardoning and saving of all men, 
if they did believe. 

" It makes the cause of men's damnation to be 
principally for want of an expiatory sacrifice and 
of a Saviour, and not of believing. 

"It leaveth all the world, elect as well as 
others, without any ground and object for the 
first justifying faith, and in an utter uncer- 
tainty whether they may believe to justification 
or not. 

"It denieth the most necessary humbling ag- 
gravation of men's sins, so that neither the 
minister can tell wicked men that they have 
sinned against him that bought them, nor can 
any wicked man so accuse himself; no, nor any 
man that doth not know himself to be elect: 
they cannot say, my sins put Christ to death, 
and were the cause of his sufferings ; nay, a 
minister cannot tell any man in the world, cer- 
tainly, (their sins put Christ to death,) because 
he is not certain who is elect or sincere in the 
faith. 

"It subverteth Christ's new dominion and 
government of the world, and his general legisla- 
tion and judgment according to his law, which is 
now founded in his title of redemption, as the 
first dominion and government was on the title 
of creation. 

"It maketh all the benefits that the non-elect 
receive, whether spiritual or corporal, and so 
even the relaxation of the curse of the law, 
(without which relaxation no man could have 
such mercies,) to befall men without the satis- 
faction of Christ; and so either make satis- 
faction, as to all those mercies, needless, or eltQ 
must find another satisfici*. 

" It maketh the law of grace to contain far 
harder terms than the law of works did in its 
utmost rigor. 



592 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



" It maketh tlie law of Hoses either to bind all 
the non-elect still to all ceremonies and bond- 
age ordinances, (and so sets np Judaism,) or 
else to be abrogated and taken down, and men 
delivered from it, without Christ's suffering for 
them. 

"It destroys almost the whole work of the 
ministry, disabling ministers either to humble 
men by the chiefest aggravations of their sins, 
and to convince them of ingratitude and unkind 
dealing with Christ, or to show them any hopes 
to draw them to repentance, or any love and 
mercy tending to salvation to melt and win them 
to the love of Christ; or any sufficient object 
for their faith and affiance, or any means to be 
used for pardon or salvation, or any promise to 
encourage them to come in, or any threatening to 
deter them. 

"It makes God and the Redeemer to have 
done no more for the remedying of the misery of 
most of fallen mankind than for the devils, nor 
to have put them into any more possibility of 
pardon or salvation. 

' ' Nay, it makes God to have dealt far hard- 
lier with most men than with the devils : making 
them a law which requireth their believing in 
one that never died for them, and taking him for 
their Redeemer that never redeemed them, and 
that on the mere foresight that they would not 
believe it, or decree that they should not ; and 
so to create by that law a necessity of their far 
sorer punishment, without procuring them any 
possibility of avoiding it. 

"It makes the gospel of its own nature to be 
the greatest plague and judgment, to most of 
men that receive it, that ever God sendeth to 
men on earth, by binding them over to a greater 
punishment, and aggravating their sin, without 
giving them any possibility of remedy. 

"It maketh the case of all the world, except 
the elect, as deplorate, remediless, and hope- 
less, as the case of the damned, and so denieth 
them to have any day of grace, visitation, or sal- 
vation, or. any price for happiness put into their 
hands. 

"It maketh Christ to condemn men to hell- 
fire for not receiving him for their Redeemer 
that never redeemed them, and for not resting on 
him for salvation by his blood, which was never 
shed for them, and for not repenting unto life, 
when they had no hope of mercy, and faith and 
repentance could not have saved them. 

"It putteth sufficient excuses into the mouths 
of the condemned. 

"It maketh the torments of conscience in 
hell to be none at all, and teacheth the damned 
to put away all their sorrows and self-accusa- 
tions. 



[part n. 

"It denieth all the privative part of those 
torments which men are obliged to suffer by the 
obligation of Christ's law, and so maketh hell 
either no hell at all, or next to none. 

"And I shall anon show how it leads to in- 
fidelity and other sins, and, after this, what 
face of religion is left unsubverted? Not that 1 
charge those that deny universal satisfaction 
with holding all these abominations; but their 
doctrine of introducing them by necessary con- 
sequence : it is the opinion and not the men that 
I accuse." 

A thorough Arminian could say nothing 
stronger than what is asserted in several of the 
above quotations ; and, perhaps, what might not 
be borne from him may call attention from Bax- 
ter, and happy would it be if every advocate of 
Calvin's reprobation would give these "conse- 
quents" a candid consideration. 

The peculiarity of Baxter's scheme will be 
seen from the following further extracts ; and, 
after all, it singularly leaves itself open to almost 
all the objections which he so powerfully urges 
against Calvinism itself. 

"Though Christ died equally for all men, in 
the aforesaid law sense, as he satisfied the 
offended legislator, and as giving himself to all 
alike in the conditional covenant, yet he never 

PROPERLY INTENDED OR PURPOSED THE ACTUAL 
JUSTIFYING AND SAVING OF ALL, nor of ANY but 

those that come to be justified and saved: he 
did not, therefore, die for all, nor for any that 
perish, with a decree or resolution to save them, 

MUCH LESS DID HE DIE FOR ALL ALIKE, AS TO THIS 
INTENT. 

" Christ hath given faith to none by his law 
or testament, though he hath revealed that to 
some he will, as benefactor and Dominus Abso- 
lutus, give that grace which shall infallibly pro- 
duce it ; and God hath given some to Christ that 
he might prevail with them accordingly; yet 
this is no giving it to the person, nor hath he in 
himself ever the more title to it, nor can any 
lay claim to it as their due. 

" It belongeth not to Christ as satisfier, nor 
yet as legislator, to make wicked refusers to be- 
come willing, and receive him and the benefits 
which he offers ; therefore he may do all for 
them that is fore-expressed, though he cure not 
their unbelief. 

"Faith is a fruit of the death of Christ, (and 
so is all the good which we do enjoy,) but not 
directly, as it is satisfaction to justice ; but only 
remotely, as it proceedeth from that jus dominii 
which Christ has received to send the Spirit in 
what measure and to whom he will, and to suc- 
ceed it accordingly; and as it is necessary to 
the attainment of the further ends of his death 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



593 



in the certain gathering and saving of the 
elect." — Universal Redemption, p. 63, etc. 

Thus, then, the whole theory conies to this, 
that, although a conditional salvation has been 
purchased by Christ for all men, and is offered 
to them, and all legal difficulties are removed 
out of the way of their pardon as sinners by 
the atonement, yet Christ hath not purchased 
for any man the gift of faith, or the power of 
performing the condition of salvation required; 
but gives this to some, and does not give it to 
others, by virtue of that absolute dominion over 
men which he has purchased for himself; so 
that, in fact, the old scheme of election and re- 
probation still comes in, only with this difference, 
that the Calvinists refer that decree to the sove- 
reignty of the Father, Baxter to the sovereignty 
of the Son : one makes the decree of reprobation 
to issue from the Creator and Judge ; the other, 
(which is indeed the more repulsive view,) from 
the Redeemer himself, who has purchased even 
those to whom he denies the gift of faith with his 
own most precious blood. This is plain from the 
following quotation : 

"God did not give Christ faith for his blood 
shed in exchange : the thing that God was to 
give the Son for his satisfaction, was dominion 
and rule of the redeemed creature, and power 
therein to use what means he saw fit for the 
bringing in of souls to himself, even to send forth 
so much of his word and Spirit as he pleased, both 
the Father and Son resolving, from eternity, to 
prevail infallibly with all the elect ; but never did 
Christ desire at his Father's hands that all whom 
he satisfied for should be infallibly and irresist- 
ibly brought to believe, nor did God ever grant 
or promise any such thing. Jesus Christ, as a 
ransom, died for all, and as Rector per leges, or 
legislator, he hath conveyed the fruits of his 
death to all, that is, those fruits which it apper- 
tained to him as legislator to convey, which is 
right to what his new law or covenant doth pro- 
mise ; but those mercies which he gives as 
Dominus absolutus, arbitrarily beside or above 
his engagement, he neither gives nor ever in- 
tended to give to all that he died for." — Uni- 
versal Redemption, p. 425. 

The only quibble which prevents the real as- 
pect of this scheme from being at first seen, is 
that Baxter and the divines of this school give 
to the elect irresistible effectual grace ; but con- 
tend that others have sufficient grace. This kind 
of grace is called, aptly enough, by Baxter him- 
self, " sufficient ineffectual grace ;" and that it is 
worthy the appellation, his own account of it 
will show. 

"I say it again, confidently, all men that 
perish (who have the use of reason) do perish 
38 



directly, for rejecting sufficient recovering grace. 
By grace, I mean mercy contrary to merit : by 
recovering, I mean such as tendeth in its own 
nature toward their recovery, and leadeth or 
helpeth them thereto. By sufficient, I mean, 

NOT SUFFICIENT DIRECTLY TO SAVE THEM ; (for 

such none of the elect have till they are saved ;) 

NOR TET SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THEM FAITH OR 
CAUSE THEM SAVINGLY TO BELIEVE. But it is 

sufficient to bring them nearer Christ than they 
are, though not to put them into immediate pos- 
session of Christ by union with him, as faith 
would do. It is an easy truth that all men na- 
turally are far from Christ, and that some, by 
custom in sinning, for want of informing and 
restraining means, are much farther from him 
than others, (as the heathens are,) and that it is 
not God's usual way (nor to be expected) to 
bring these men to Christ at once, by one act, or 
without any preparation, or first bringing them 
nearer to him. It is a similitude used by some 
that oppose what I now say : suppose a man in 
a lower room should go no more steps than he in 
the middle room, he must go many steps before 
he came to be as near you as the other is. Now, 
suppose you offer to take them by the hand when 
they come to the upper stairs, and give them 
some other sufficient help to come up the lower 
steps : if these men will not use the help given 
them to ascend the first steps, (though entreated, ) 
who can be blamed but themselves if they came 
not to the top ? It is not your fault but theirs 
that they have not your hand to lift them up at 
the last step. So is our present case. World- 
lings, and sensual ignorant sinners, have many 
steps to ascend before they come to justifying 
faith ; and heathens have many steps before they 
come as far as ungodly Christians, (as might 
easily be manifested by enumeration of several 
necessary particulars.) Now, if these will not 
use that sufficient help that Christ gives them 
to come the first, or second, or third step, whose 
fault is it that they have not faith?"— -Universal 
Redemption, p. 434. 

But we have no reason to conclude, from this 
system, that if they took the steps required, it 
would bring them "nearer to Christ than they 
are," or, at least, bring them up to saving faith, 
which is the great point, since Mr. Baxter's own 
doctrine is, that Christ " never properly intended 
or purposed the actual justifying and saving of 
all, and did not, therefore, die for all, nor for 
any that perish, with a. design or resolution to save 
them, much less did he die for all, as to this intent." 
Those, then, for whom Christ died, not with in- 
tent to give saving faith, cannot be saved ; yet 
wo are told that to these sufficient grace is given 
to take a step or two which would bring them 



594 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



"nearer to Christ." Suppose such persons, 
then, to take these steps; yet, as Christ died 
not for them with intent to give them saving 
faith, without this intent they cannot have sav- 
ing faith, since it is not a part of Christ's pur- 
chase, but his arbitrary gift. The truth, then, is, 
that their salvation is as impossible as that of 
the reprobates under the supralapsarian scheme, 
and the reason of their doom is no act of their 
own, but an act of Christ himself, who, as "ab- 
solute Lord," denies that to them which is ne- 
cessary to their salvation. 

It is, however, but fair that Mr. Baxter should 
himself answer this objection. 

"Objection. — Then, they that come not the first 
step are excusable ; for, if they had come to the 
step next believing, they had no assurance that 
Christ would have given them faith. 

"Answer. — No such matter; for though they 
had no assurance, they had both God's command 
to seek more grace, and sufficient encouragement 
thereto : they had such as Mr. Cotton calls half 
promises ; that is, a discovery of a possibility, 
and high degree of probability, of obtaining ; 
as Peter to Simon, pray, if perhaps the thoughts 
of thy heart may be forgiven. They may think 
God will not appoint men vain means, and he 
hath appointed some means to all men to get 
more grace, and bring them nearer Christ than 
they are. Yea, no man can name that man since 
the world was made that did his best in the use 
of these means, and lost his labor. So that if all 
men have not faith it is their own fault, not only 
as originally sinners, but as rejecting sufficient 
grace to have brought them nearer Christ than 
they were ; for which it is that they justly perish, 
as is more fully opened in the dispute of sufficient 
grace." 

One argument from Scripture demolishes this 
whole scheme. Mr. Baxter makes the condem- 
nation of men to rest upon their not coming 
"nearer to Christ" than they are in their natural 
state ; but the Scripture places their guilt in not 
fully "coming to him;" or, in other words, in 
their not believing in Christ " to salvation," since 
it has made faith their duty, and has connected 
salvation with faith. That they must take pre- 
vious steps, such as consideration and repentance, 
is true, and that they are guilty for not taking 
them ; but then their guilt arises from their re- 
jection of a strength and grace to consider and 
repent which is imparted to them, in order to lead 
them, through this process, to saving faith itself; 
and they are condemned for not having this faith, 
because not only the preparatory steps, but the 
faith itself is put within their reach, or they 
could not be condemned for unbelief. If Baxter 
really meant that any steps these non-elect per- 



[PART II. 

sons could take would actually put them into 
possession of saving faith, he would have said so 
in so many plain words, and then between him 
and the Arminians there would have been no dif- 
ference, so far as they who perish are concerned. 
But coming nearer to Christ, and nearer to sav- 
ing faith, are with him quite distinct. His con- 
cern was not to show how the non-elect might be 
saved, but how they might with some plausibility 
be damned. 

"What, then," says Dr. Womack, "is the uni- 
versal redemption you or they speak of ? Doth 
it consist in the ablation of the curse or pain, the 
impetration of grace and righteousness, and the 
collation of life and glory ? Man's misery con- 
sists but of two parts, sin and punishment. Doth 
your universal redemption make sufficient provi- 
sion to free the non-elect from both, or from either 
of these ? From the wrath to come, the damna- 
tion of hell, or from iniquity and their vain con- 
versation ? Indeed, in your assize sermons, you 
did very seasonably preach up Christ to be a 
Lord Chief Justice to judge the reprobate ; but I 
cannot find that ever you declare him to be their 
Lord Keeper or their Lord Treasurer, to commu- 
nicate his saving grace for their conversion, or to 
secure them against the assaults and rage of their 
ghostly enemy. These last offices you suppose 
him to bear in favor of the elect only, so that 
your universal redemption holds a very fair cor- 
respondence with your sufficient grace, (as to the 
non-elect,) there is not one single person sancti- 
fied by this, or saved by that." — Calvinistic Cabi- 
net Unlocked. 

The remark of Curcellaeus on the same system, 
as delivered by Amyraldus, is conclusive : 

"Beside, since faith is necessary, in order to 
make us partakers of the benefits which are pro- 
cured by the death of Christ, and since no one 
can obtain it by his natural powers, (for it is im- 
parted through a special gift, from which God, 
by an absolute decree, has excluded the greatest 
portion of mankind,) of what avail is it that 
Christ has died for those to whom faith is denied? 
Does not the affair revert to the same point as 
if he had never entertained an intention of redeem- 
ing them V — Be Jure Dei Creaturas, etc. 

This cannot consistently be denied. Mr. Bax- 
ter, indeed, says that "none can name the man 
since the world was made that did his best in the 
use of the means to obtain more gi'ace, and lost 
his labor." So we believe, but this helps not 
Mr. Baxter. One of his main principles is, that 
there is a class of men to whom Christ has re- 
solved to give saving faith : to the rest he has 
resolved not to give it. The man, then, who 
seeks more than common grace, and obtains sav- 
ing grace, is either in the class to whom Christ 



ch. xxvin.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



595 



has resolved, by right of dominion, to give saving 
grace, or he is not. If the former, then he is 
one of the elect, and so the instance given proves 
nothing as to the case of the non-elect ; but if 
he be of the latter class, then one of those to 
whom Christ never resolved to give saving grace, 
by some means obtains it — how, it will be difficult 
to say. In fact, it was never allowed by Mr. 
Baxter or his followers that any but the elect 
would be saved. 

The remarks of a Calvinist upon the "middle 
scheme" of the French divines, the same in sub- 
stance as that which was afterward advocated by 
Baxter, may properly close our remarks. 

" This mitigated view of the doctrine of pre- 
destination has only one defect, but it is a capital 
one. It represents God as desiring a thing (that 
is, salvation and happiness) for all, which, in 
order to its attainment, requires a degree of his 
assistance and succor which he refuseth to many. 
This rendered grace and redemption universal 
only in word, but partial in reality ; and, there- 
fore, did not at all mend the matter. The supra- 
lapsarians were consistent with themselves ; but 
their doctrine was harsh and terrible, and was 
founded on the most unworthy notions of the 
Supreme Being ; and, on the other hand, the 
system of Amyraut was full of inconsistencies ; 
nay, even the sublapsarian doctrine has its diffi- 
culties, and rather palliates than removes the 
horrors of supralapsarianism. What, then, is to 
be done ? From what quarter shall the candid 
and well-disposed Christian receive that solid 
satisfaction and wise direction which neither of 
these systems is adapted to administer ? These 
he will receive by turning his dazzled and feeble 
eye from the secret decrees of God, which were 
neither designed to be rules of action nor sources 
of comfort to mortals here below, and by fixing 
his view upon the mercy of God, as it is mani- 
fested through Christ, the pure laws and sublime 
promises of his gospel, and the equity of his 
present government and future tribunal." — Mac- 
laine's Notes on Moshchrfs History. 

The theory to which the name of Baxter has 
given some weight in this country, has been in- 
troduced more at length, because with it stands 
or falls every system of moderated or modified 
Calvinism which by more modern writers has 
been advocated. The scheme of Dr. Williams, of 
Botherham, is little beside the old theory of 
supralapsarian reprobation, in its twofold enun- 
ciation of preterition, by which God refuses 
help to a creature which cannot stand without 
help, and his consequent damnation for the 
crimes committed in consequence of this with- 
holding of supernatural aid. The dress is altered, 
and the system lias a dash of Cameronism, but it I 



is in substance the same. All other mitigated 
schemes rest on two principles, the sufficiency of 
the atonement for all mankind, and the suffici- 
ency of grace to those who believe not. For the 
first, it is enough to say, that the Synod of Dort 
and the higher Calvinistic school will agree with 
them upon this point, and so nothing is gained ; 
for the second, that the sufficiency of grace in 
these schemes is always understood in Baxter's 
sense, and is mere verbiage. It is not "the 
grace of God which bringeth salvation;" for 
no man is actually saved without something more 
than this "sufficient grace" provides. That 
which is contended for is, in fact, not a suffi- 
ciency of grace in order to salvation; but in 
order to justify the condemnation which inevita- 
bly follows. For this alone the struggle is made, 
but without success. The main characteristic 
of all these theories, from the first to the last, 
from the highest to the lowest, is, that a part of 
mankind are shut out from the mercies of God, 
on some ground irrespective of their refusal of a 
sincere offer to them of salvation through Christ, 
made with a communicated power of embracing 
it. Some power they allow to the reprobate, as 
natural power, and degrees of superadded moral 
power ; but in no case the power to believe unto 
salvation ; and thus, as one well observes, "when 
they have cut some fair trenches, as if they would 
bring the water of life unto the dwellings of the 
reprobate, on a sudden they open a sluice which 
carries it off again." The whole labor of these 
theories is to find out some decent pretext for 
the infliction of punishment on them that perish, 
independent of the only reason given by Scrip- 
ture, their rejection of a mercy free for all. 

Having exhibited the Calvinistic system on its 
own authorities, it may be naturally asked from 
what mode or bias of thinking a scheme could 
arise so much at variance with the Scriptures, 
and with all received notions of just and benevo- 
lent administration among men — properties of 
government which must be found more perfectly 
in the government of God, by reason of the 
perfection of its author, than in any other. That 
it had its source in a course of induction from 
the Sacred Scriptures, though erroneous, is not 
probable ; for, if it had been left to that test, it 
is pretty certain it would not have maintained 
itself. It appears rather to have arisen from 
metaphysical hypotheses and school subtilties^to 
which the sense of Scripture has been accommo- 
dated, often very violently ; and by subtilties of 
this kind it has, at all times, been chiefly sup- 
ported. 

It has, for instance, been assumed by the ad- 
vocates of this theological theory, that all things 
which come to pass have been fixed by eternal 



>96 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



decrees ; and that as many men actually perish, 
it must, therefore, have been decreed that they 
should perish; and, consistently with such a 
scheme, it became necessary to exclude a part 
of the human race from all share in the benefits 
of Christ's redemption. The argument employed 
to confirm the premises is, "that it is agreeable 
to reason and to the analogy of nature that God 
should conduct all things according to a delibe- 
rate and fixed plan, independent of his creatures, 
rather than that he should be influenced, even in 
his purposes, by the foresight of their capricious 
conduct." (Dr. Raxkix's Institutes.) "It is not 
easy to reconcile the immutability and efficacy 
of the Divine counsel which enters into our con- 
ceptions of the first cause, with a purpose to save 
all, suspended upon a condition which is not ful- 
filled with regard to many." (Dr. Hill's Lec- 
tures.) This has, indeed, all along been the main 
stress of the argument for absolute decrees, that 
a conditional decree reflects dishonor upon the 
Divine attributes, "by leaving God, as it were, 
in suspense, and waiting to see what men will do, 
before he passes a firm and irrevocable decree;" 
which, as they say, seems to imply want of 
power and prescience in God, and to be inconsist- 
ent with other of his Divine perfections. They 
especially think that this is irreconcilable with 
the immutability of God, and that to subject his 
decrees to the changes of a countless number of 
mutable beings, must render him the most muta- 
ble being in the universe. 

The whole of this objection, however, seems to 
involve a petitio principii. It is taken for granted, 
either that the decrees of God are absolute ap- 
pointments from eternity, and then any change 
of his decrees, dependent upon the acts of crea- 
tures, would be a contradiction : or else, that the 
acts of creatures being free, it follows that God 
had from eternity no plan, and conducts his own 
government only as circumstances may arise. 
But that either the decrees of God are fixed and 
absolute, or that God can have no plan of gov- 
ernment if that be denied, is the very alterna- 
tive to be proved, the matter which is in debate. 
It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to as- 
certain the truth, to fix the sense of the favorite 
term "decrees;" and for this we have no sound 
guide but the Holy Scriptures, which, as to what 
relates to man's salvation at least, contain the 
only exposition of the purposes of God. 

The term "decree" is nowhere in Scripture 
used in the sense in which it is taken in the 
theology of the Calvinists. It is properly a leg- 
islative or judicial term, importing the solemn 
decision of a court, and was adopted into that 
:;i, probably, because of the absolute mean- 
ing it conveys, which quality of absoluteness is, 



[PAET II. 



| in fact, the point debated. The "purpose" and 
"counsel" of God are the scriptural terms ap- 
plicable to this subject ; one of which, "counsel" 
expresses an act of wisdom, and the other neces- 
sarily implies it, as it is the "purpose" des 
or determination of a Being of infinite perfec- 
tion, who can purpose, design, will, and deter- 
mine nothing but under the direction of his 
intelligence, and the regulation of his moral 
attributes. 

Terms are not indeed to be objected to merely 
because they are not found in the word of God: 
but their signification must be controlled by it : 
otherwise, as in the case of the term decrees, a 
meaning is often silently brought in under covert 
of the term, which becomes a postulate in argu- 
ment — a practice which has been a fruitful source 
of misapprehension and error. The decrees of 
God, if the phrase then must be continued, can 
only scripturally signify the determinations of 
his will in his government of the world he has 
made ; and those determinations are plainly, in 
Scripture, referred to two classes, what he has 
himself determined to do, and what he has deter- 
mined to permit to be done by free and accounta- 
ble creatures. He determined, for instance, to 
create man, and he determined to permit his fall; 
he determined also the only method of dispens- 
ing pardon to the guilty, but he determined to 
permit men to reject it, and to fall into the pun- 
ishment of their offences. Calvin, indeed, rejects 
the doctrine of permission. "It is not probable," 
he says, "that man procured his own destruc- 
tion by the mere permission, and without any 
appointment of God." He had reason for this ; 
for to have allowed this distinction would have 
been contrary to the main principles of his the- 
ological system, which are, that "the will of 
God is the necessity of things," and that all 
things are previously fixed by an absolute de- 
cree — so that they must happen. The conse- 
quence is, that he and his followers involve 
themselves in the tremendous consequence of 
making God the author of sin; which, after all 
their disavowals, and we grant them sincere, will 
still logically cleave to them ; for it is obvious, 
that by nothing can we fairly avoid this conse- 
quence but by allowing the distinction between 
determinations to do, on the part of God, and 
determinations to pekmit certain things to be 
done by others. The principle laid down by 
Calvin is destructive of ail human agency, see- 
ing it converts man into a mere instrument; 
while the other maintains his agency in its proper 
sense, and, therefore, his proper accountability. 
On Calvin's principle, man is no more an agent 
than the knife in the hand of the assassin ; and 
he is not more responsible, therefore, in equity, 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



597 



to punishment, than the knife by which the 
assassination is committed, were it capable of 
being punished. For if man has not a real 
agency, that is, if there is a necessity above him 
so controlling his actions as to render it impossi- 
ble that they should have been otherwise, he is 
in the hands of another, and not master of him- 
self, and so his actions cease to be his own. 

A decree to permit involves no such conse- 
quences. This is indeed acknowledged ; but 
then, on the other hand, it is urged that this 
imposes an uncertainty upon the plans of God, 
and makes him dependent upon the acts of the 
creature. In neither of thete allegations is 
there any weight ; for as to the first, there can 
be no uncertainty in the principles of the admin- 
istration of a Being who regulates the whole by 
the immutable rules of righteousness, holiness, 
truth, and goodness ; so that all the acts of the 
creature do but call forth some new illustration 
of his unchangeable regard to these principles. 
Nor can any act of a creature render his plans 
uncertain by coming upon him by surprise, and 
thus oblige him to alter his intentions on the 
spur of the moment. What the creature will do, 
in fact, is known beforehand with a perfect pre- 
science, which yet, as we have already proved, 
(Part ii. c. 4,) interferes not with the liberty of 
our actions ; and what God has determined to do 
in consequence, is made apparent by what he 
actually does, which with him can be no new, no 
sudden thought, but known and purposed from 
eternity, in the view of the actual circumstances. 
As to the second objection, that this makes his 
conduct dependent upon the acts of the creature, 
so far from denying it, we may affirm it to be one 
of the plainest doctrines of the word of God. 
lie punishes or blesses men according to their 
conduct ; and he waits until the acts of their sin 
or their obedience take place, before he either 
punishes or rewards. The dealings of a sover- 
eign judge must, in the nature of things them- 
selves, be dependent upon the conduct of the 
subjects over whom he rules : they must vary 
according to that conduct ; and it is only in the 
principles of a righteous government that we 
ought to look for that kind of immutability 
which has any thing in it of moral character. 
Still it is said, that though the acts of God, as a 
sovereign, change, and are, apparently, depend- 
ent upon the conduct of creatures, yet that he, 
from all eternity, decreed or determined to do 
them : as, for instance, to exalt one nation and to 
abase another ; to favor this individual, or to 
punish that; to save this man, or to destroy the 
other. This may be granted; but only in this 
sense, that his eternal determination or decree 
was as dependent and consequent upon his pre- 



science of the acts which, according to the im- 
mutable principles of his nature and government, 
are pleasing or hateful to him, as the actual 
administration of favor or punishment is upon 
the actual conduct of men in time. This brings 
on the question of decrees absolute or conditional ; 
and we are, happily, not left to the reasonings 
of men on this point ; but have the light of the 
word of God, which abounds with examples of 
decrees, to which conditions are annexed, on the 
performance or neglect of which, by his crea- 
tures, their execution is made dependent. "If 
thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? but 
if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." If 
this was God's eternal decree concerning Cain, 
then it was plainly conditional from eternity ; for 
his decrees in time cannot contradict his decrees 
from eternity, as to the same persons and events. 
But Cain did "not well :" was it not, then, says 
a Calvinist, eternally and absolutely decreed that 
he should not " do well ?" The reply is, no ; be- 
cause this supposed absolute decree of the Cal- 
vinist would contradict the revealed decree or 
determination of God, to put both the doing well 
and the doing ill into Cain's own power, which is 
utterly inconsistent with an absolute decree that 
he should have it in his power only to do ill ; 
and the inevitable conclusion, therefore, is, that 
the only eternal decree or Divine determination 
concerning Cain in this matter was, that he 
should be conditionally accepted, or conditionally 
left to the punishment of his sins. To this class 
of conditional decrees belong also all such pas- 
sages as: "If ye be willing and obedient, ye 
shall eat the good of the land ; but if ye refuse 
and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword." 
"If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if 
ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of 
the body, ye shall live." "He that believeth 
shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be 
damned." This last, especially, is God's decree 
or determination, as to all who hear the gospel, 
to the end of time. It professes to be so on the 
very face of it, for its general and unrestricted 
nature cannot be denied ; but if we are told 
that there is a decree affecting numbers of men 
as individuals, by which God determined abso- 
lutely to pass them by, and to deny to them the 
grace of faith, such an allegation cannot be true : 
because it contradicts the decree as revealed by 
God himself. His decree gives to all who hear 
the news of Christ's salvation, the alternative of 
believing and being saved, of not believing and 
being damned; but there is no alternative in the 
absolute decree of Calvinism: as io the repro- 
bate, no one can believe and be saved who is 
nnder such decree : God never intended he 
should; and, therefore, he is put by one decree 



598 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



in one condition, and by another decree in an en- 
tirely opposite condition, which is an obvious 
contradiction. 

But we have instances of the revocation of 
God's decrees, as well as of their conditional 
character, one of which will be sufficient for 
illustration. In the case of Eli, "I said indeed 
that thy house and the house of thy father should 
walk before me for ever ; but now the Lord saith, 
Be it far from me ; for them that honor me I will 
honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly 
esteemed." No passage can more strongly re- 
fute the Calvinistic notion of God's immutability, 
which they seem to place in his never changing 
his purpose; whereas, in fact, the scriptural doc- 
trine is, that it consists in his never changing 
the principles of his administration. One of 
those principles is laid down in this passage. It 
is, " Them that honor me I will honor, and they 
that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." To 
this principle God is immutably true ; but it 
was his unchangeable regard to that very prin- 
ciple which brought on the change of his conduct 
toward the house of Eli, and induced him to re- 
voke his former promise. This is the only immu- 
tability worthy of God, or which can be recon- 
ciled to the facts of his government. For either 
the advocate of absolute predestination must say 
that the promises and threatenings are declara- 
tions of his will and purposes, or they are not. 
If they are not, they contradict his truth ; but 
if the point, that they do in fact declare his will, 
is conceded, that will is either absolute or con- 
ditional. Let us, then, try the case of Eli by 
this alternative. If the promise of continuing 
the priesthood in the family of Eli were abso- 
lute, then it could not be revoked. If the threat- 
ening expressed an absolute and eternal will and 
determination to divert the priesthood from Eli's 
progeny, then the promise was a mockery ; and 
God is in this, and all similar instances, made to 
engage himself to do what is contrary to his 
absolute intention and determination: in other 
words, he makes no engagement in fact, while 
he seems to do it in form, which involves a 
charge against the Divine Being which few Cal- 
vinists would be bold enough to maintain. But 
if these declarations to Eli be regarded as the 
expressions of a determination always taken, in 
the mind of God, under the conditions implied 
in the fixed principles of his government, then 
the language and the acts of God harmonize with 
his sincerity and faithfulness, and, instead of 
throwing a shade over his moral attributes, illus- 
trate his immutable regard to those wise, equi- 
table, and holy rules by which he conducts his 
government of moral agents. Nor will the dis- 
tinction which some Calvinists have endeavored 



[part n. 

to establish between the promises and threaten- 
ings of God and his decrees, serve them ; for 
where is it to be found except in their own 
imagination ? We have no intimation of such a 
distinction in Scripture, which, nevertheless, 
professes to reveal the eternal "purpose" and 
"counsel" of God on those matters to which his 
promises and threatenings relate — the salvation 
or destruction of men. That counsel and pur- 
pose has, also, no manifestation in his word, but 
by promises and threatenings ; these make up 
its whole substance, and, therefore, in order to 
make their distinction good, those who hold it 
must discover a distinction not only between 
God's promises and threatenings and his de- 
crees, but between the eternal "counsels and 
purposes" of God and his decrees, which they 
acknowledge to be identical. 

The fallacy which seems to mislead them ap- 
pears to be the following : They allege that of 
two consequences, say the obedience or disobe- 
dience of Eli's house, we acknowledge, on both 
sides, that one will happen. That which actually 
happens we also see taken up into the course of 
the Divine administration, and made a part of 
his subsequent plan of government, as the trans- 
fer of the priesthood from the house of Eli; 
they therefore argue that the Divine Being, 
having his plan before him, and this very cir- 
cumstance entering into it, it was fixed from 
eternity as a part of that general scheme by 
which the purposes of God were to be accom- 
plished, and which would have been uncertain 
and unarranged but for this preordination. The 
answer to this is, 

1. That the circumstance of an event being 
taken up into the Divine administration, and 
being made use of to work out God's purposes, 
is no proof that he willed and decreed it. He 
could not will the wickedness of Eli's sons, and 
could not, therefore, ordain and appoint it, or 
his decrees would be contrary to his will. The 
making use of the result of the choice of a free 
agent, only proves that it was foreseen, and that 
there are, so to speak, infinite resources in the 
Divine mind to turn the actions of men into the 
accomplishment of his plans, without either will- 
ing them when they are evil, or imposing fetters 
upon their freedom. 

2. That though an event be interwoven with 
the course of the Divine government, it does 
not follow that it was necessary to it. The ends 
of a course of administration might have been 
otherwise accomplished; as, in the case before 
us, if Eli's house had remained faithful, and the 
family of Zadok had not been chosen in its stead. 
The general plan of God's government does not, 
therefore, necessarily include every event which 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



599 



happens as a necessary part of its accomplish- 
ment, since the same results might, in many- 
cases, have been brought out of other events; 
and, therefore, it cannot be conclusively argued, 
that as God wills the accomplishment of the 
general plan, he must will in the same manner 
the particular events which he may overrule to 
contribute to it. But, 

3. As to the general plan, it is also an un- 
founded assumption that it was the subject of 
an absolute determination. From this has arisen 
the notion that the fall of Adam was willed and 
decreed by God. To this doctrine, which, for 
the sake of a metaphysical speculation, draws 
after it so many abhorrent and anti-scriptural 
consequences, we must demur. God could not 
will that event actively without willing sin : he 
could not absolutely decree it without removing 
all responsibility, and, therefore, all fault, from 
the first offender. If God be holy, he could not 
will Adam's offence, though he might determine 
not to prevent it by interfering with man's free- 
dom, which is a very different case ; and if, in 
guarding his law from violation by a severe 
sanction, he proceeded with sincerity, he could 
not appoint its violation. We may confidently 
say, that he willed the contrary of Adam's 
offence ; and that he used all means consistent 
with his determination to give and maintain free 
agency to his creatures, to secure the accom- 
plishment of that will. It was against his will, 
therefore, that our progenitors sinned and fell ; 
and his "purpose" and "counsel," or his decree, 
if the term please better, to govern the world 
according to the principles and mode now in 
operation, was dependent upon an event which 
he willed not ; but which, as being foreseen, was 
the plan he, in wisdom, justice, and mercy, adopted 
in the view of this contingency. And suppose we 
were to acknowledge, with some, that the result 
will be more glorious to him, and more bene- 
ficial to the universe, through the wisdom with 
which he overrules all things, than if Adam 
and his descendants had stood in their inno- 
cency: it will not follow, even from this, that 
the present was that order of events which God 
absolutely ordered and decreed. We are told, 
indeed, that if this was the best of possible plans, 
God was, by the perfection of his nature, bound 
to choose it ; and that if he chose it, his will, in 
this respect, made all the rest necessary. But, 
to say nothing of the presumption of determin- 
ing what God was bound to do in any hypothetic 
case, the position that God must choose the best 
of possible plans is to be taken with qualifica- 
tion. We can neither prove that the state of 
tilings which shall actually issne is the best 
among those possible; nor that among possible 



systems there can be a best, since they are all 
composed of created things, and no system can 
actually exist to which the Creator, who is in- 
finite in power, could not add something. Were 
no sin involved in the case, it would be clearer ; 
but it is not only unsupported by any declara- 
tion of Scripture, but certainly contrary to many 
of its principles, to assume that God originally, 
so to speak, and in the first instance, willed and 
decreed a state of things which should necessarily 
include the introduction of moral evil into his 
creation, in order to manifest his glory, and 
work out future good to the creature ; because 
we know that sin is that "abominable thing" 
which he hateth. A monarch is surely not 
bound secretly to appoint and decree the circum- 
stances which must necessarily lead to a rebel- 
lion, in order that his clemency may be more 
fully manifested in pardoning the rebels, or the 
strength of his government displayed in their 
subjugation; although his subjects, upon the 
whole, might derive some higher benefit. We 
may, therefore, conclude that God willed with 
perfect truth and sincerity that man should not 
fall, although he resolved not to prevent that 
fall by interfering with his freedom, which would 
have changed the whole character of his govern- 
ment toward rational creatures ; and that his 
plan, or decree, to govern the world upon the 
principle of redemption and mediation, was no 
absolute ordination, but conditional upon man's 
offence; and was an "eternal purpose" only in 
the eternal foresight of the actual occurrence of 
the fall of man, which yet, it is no contradiction 
to say, was against his will. 

So fallacious are all such notions as to God's 
fixed plans. Fixed they may be, without being 
absolutely decreed ; because fixed, in reference 
to what takes place, even in opposition to his 
will and intention ; and as to the argument drawn 
by Calvinists from the perfections of God, it is 
surely a more honorable view of him to suppose 
that his will and his promulgated laic accord and 
consent, than that they are in opposition to each 
other : more honorable to him, that he is immu- 
table in his adherence to the principles, rather 
than in the acts of government : more honorable 
to him, that he can make the conduct of his free 
creatures to work out either his original pur- 
poses, or purposes more glorious to himself and 
beneficial to the universe, than that he should 
frame plans so fixed as to have no reference to 
the free actions of creatures, whom, by a strange 
contradiction, he is represented as still holding 
accountable for their conduct — plans whioh all 
these creatures shall bo necessitated to fulfil, so 
as to be capable of no other course ol' action 
whatever, or else that his government must be- 



600 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



come loose and uncertain. This is, indeed, to 
have low thoughts, even of the infinite wisdom 
of God ; and either involves his justice and truth 
in deep obscurity, or presents them to us under 
very equivocal aspects. Which of these views is 
the most consonant with the Bible, may be safely 
left with the candid reader. 

The prescience of God is also a subject by 
which Calvinists have endeavored to give some 
plausibility to their system. The argument, as 
popularly stated, has been, that as the destruc- 
tion or salvation of every individual is foreseen, 
it is therefore certain ; and as certain, it is inevi- 
table and necessary. The answer to this is, that 
certainty and necessity are not at all connected 
in the nature of things, and are, in fact, two 
perfectly distinct predicaments. Certainty has 
no relation to an event at all as evitable or inevi- 
table, free or compelled, contingent or necessary : 
it relates only to the issue itself — the act of any 
agent — not to the quality of the act or event 
with reference to the circumstances under which 
it is produced. A free action is as much an event 
as a necessitated one, and therefore is as truly 
an object of foresight, which foresight cannot 
change the nature of the action, or of the pro- 
cess through which it issues, because the simple 
knowledge of an action, whether present, past, 
or to come, has no influence upon it of any kind. 
Certainty is, in fact, no quality of an action at 
all: it exists, properly speaking, in the mind 
foreseeing, and not in the action foreseen; but 
freedom or constraint, contingency or necessity, 
qualify the action itself, and determine its nature, 
and the rewardableness or punitive demerit of 
the agent. When, therefore, it is said that what 
God foresees will certainly happen, nothing more 
can be reasonably meant than that he is certain 
that it will happen : so that we must not transfer 
the certainty from God to the action itself, in the 
false sense of necessity, or indeed in any sense ; 
for the certainty is in the Divine mind, and 
stands there opposed, not to the contingency of 
the action, but to doubtfulness as to his own 
prescience of the result. There is this certainty 
in the Divine mind as to the actions of men, that 
they will happen; but that they must happen 
cannot follow from this circumstance. If they 
must happen, they are under some control which 
prevents a different result ; but the most certain 
knowledge has nothing in it which, from its 
nature, can control an action in any way, unless 
it should lead the being endowed with it to adopt 
measures to influence the action, and then it 
becomes a question, not of foreknowledge, but 
of power and influence, which wholly changes 
the case. This is a sufficient reply to the 
popular manner of stating the argument. The 



scholastic method requires a little more illus- 
tration. 

The knowledge of possible things, as existing 
from all eternity in the Divine understanding, 
has been termed " scientia simplicis intellige?itia}," 
or by the schoolmen, ''scientia indefinita," as not 
determining the existence of any thing. The 
knowledge which God had of all real existences 
is termed "scientia visionis," and by the school- 
men, "scientia definita," because the existence of 
all objects of this knowledge is determinate and 
certain. To these distinctions another was added 
by those who rejected the predestinarian hypo- 
thesis, to which they gave the name "scientia 
media," as being supposed to stand in the middle 
between the two former. By this is understood, 
the knowledge, neither of things as possible, nor 
of events appointed and decreed by God; but 
of events which are to happen upon certain con- 
ditions. 1 

The third kind of knowledge, or scientia media, 
might very well be included in the second, since 
scientia visionis ought to include not what God 
will do, and what his creatures will do under his 
appointment, but what they will do by his per- 
mission as free agents, and what he will do, as a 
consequence of this, in his character of Governor 
and Lord. But since the predestinarians had 
confounded scientia visionis with a predestinating 
decree, the scientia media well expressed what 
they had left quite unaccounted for, and which 
they had assumed did not really exist, — the 
actions of creatures endowed with free will, and 
the acts of Deity which from eternity were con- 
sequent upon them. If such actions do not take 
place, then men are not free ; and if the rectoral 
acts of God are not consequent upon the actions 
of the creature in the order of the Divine inten- 
tion, and the conduct of the creature is conse- 
quent upon the foreordained rectoral acts of God, 
then we reach a necessitating eternal decree, 
which, in fact, the predestinarian contends for ; 
but it unfortunately brings after it consequences 
which no subtilties have ever been able to shake 
off, — that the only actor in the universe is God 
himself; and that the only distinction among 
events is, that one class is brought to pass by 

1 "Ordo autem hie ut recte intelligi possit, observandum 
est triplicem Deo scientiam tribui solere : imam necessariam, 
qua? omnem voluntatis libera? actum naturte ordine ante- 
cedit, quae etiam practica et simjrficis inteUigentice dici potest, 
qua seipsum et alia omnia possibilia intelligit. Alteram 
! Uberam, quae consequitur actum voluntatis libera?, quoa 
I etiam visionis dici potest ; qua. Deus omnia, qua; facere et 
permittere decrevit ita distincte novit, uti ea fieri et per- 
mittere voluit. Tertiam mediam, qua sub conditione novit 
quid homines aut angeli facturi essent pro sua libertate, si 
cum his aut illis circumstantiis, in hoc vel in illo rerum 
ordine, constituerentur." — Disputat. Episcqpii, part i., 
disp. v. 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



601 



God directly, and the other indirectly ; not by 
the agency, but by the mere instrumentality of his 
creatures. 

The manner in which absolute predestination 
is made identical with scientia visionis, will be 
best illustrated by an extract from the writings 
of a tolerably fair and temperate modern Cal- 
vinist. Speaking of the two distinctions, scientia 
simplicis intellig entice and scientia visionis, he says : 

" Those who consider all the objects of know- 
ledge as comprehended under one or other of the 
kinds that have been explained, are naturally 
conducted to that enlarged conception of the 
extent of the Divine decree, from which the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of predestination unavoidably 
follows. The Divine decree is the determination 
of the Divine will to produce the universe : that 
is, the whole series of beings and events that 
were then future. The parts of this series arise 
in succession; but all were, from eternity, present 
to the Divine mind ; and no cause that was at 
any time to operate, or no effect that was at any 
time to be produced in the universe can be ex- 
cluded from the original decree, without sup- 
posing that the decree was at first imperfect and 
afterward received accessions. The determina- 
tion to produce this world, understanding by that 
word the whole combination of beings, and 
causes, and effects that were to come into exist- 
ence, arose out of the view of all possible worlds, 
and proceeded upon reasons to us unsearchable, 
by which this world that now exists appeared to 
the Divine wisdom the fittest to be produced. I 
say, the determination to produce this world 
proceeded upon reasons ; because we must sup- 
pose that in forming the decrees a choice was 
exerted : that the Supreme Being was at liberty 
to resolve either that he would create, or that he 
would not create : that he would give his work 
this form or that form, as he chose ; otherwise 
we withdraw from the Supreme Intelligence, and 
subject all things to blind fatality. But if a 
choice was exerted in forming the decree, the 
choice must have proceeded upon reasons ; for a 
choice made by a wise Being, without any ground 
of choice, is a contradiction in terms. At the 
same time it is to be remembered, that as nothing 
then existed but the Supreme Being, the only 
reason which could determine him in choosing 
what he was to produce, was its appearing to 
him fitter for accomplishing the end which he 
proposed to himself, than any thing else which 
he might have produced. Hence, scientia visionis 
is called by theologians scientia libera. To scientia 
simplicis intellig entice, they gave the epithet natu- 
ralis, because the knowledge of all things possi- 
ble arises necessarily from the nature of the 
Supreme mind ; but to scientia visionis they gave | 



the epithet libera, because the qualities and extent 
of its objects are determined, not by any neces- 
sity of nature, but by the will of the Deity. 
Although, in forming the Divine decree, there 
was a choice of this world, proceeding upon a 
representation of all possible worlds, it is not to 
be conceived that there was any interval between 
the choice and representation, or any succession 
in the parts of the choice. In the Divine mind 
there was an intuitive view of that immense 
subject, which it is not only impossible for our 
minds to comprehend at once, but in travelling 
through the parts of which we are instantly be- 
wildered ; and one decree, embracing at once the 
end and means, ordained with perfect wisdom 
all that was to be. 

"The condition of the human race entered 
into this decree. It is not. perhaps, the most 
important part of it when we speak of the for- 
mation of the universe ; but it is a part which, 
even were it more insignificant than it is, could 
not be overlooked by the Almighty, whose atten- 
tion extends to all his works, and which appears, 
by those dispensations of his providence that 
have been made known to us, to be interesting 
in his eyes. A decree respecting the condition 
of the human race, includes the history of every 
individual : the time of his appearing upon the 
earth : the manner of his existence while he is 
an inhabitant of the earth, as it is diversified by 
the actions which he performs, and by the events, 
whether prosperous or calamitous, which befall 
him, and the manner of his existence after he 
leaves the earth — that is, future happiness or 
misery. A decree respecting the condition of 
the human race also includes the relations of the 
individiials to one another: it fixes their connec- 
tions in society, which have a great influence 
upon their happiness and their improvement ; 
and it must be conceived as extending to the 
important events recorded in Scripture, in which 
the whole species have a concern. Of this kind 
is the sin of our first parents, the consequence 
of that sin reaching to all their posterity, the 
mediation of Jesus Christ appointed by God as a 
remedy for these consequences, the final salva- 
tion, through his mediation, of one part of the 
descendants of Adam, and the final condemna- 
tion of another part, notwithstanding the remedy. 
These events arise at long intervals of time, by 
a gradual preparation of circumstances, and the 
operation of various means. But by the Creator, 
to whose mind the end ami means were at once 
present, these events were beheld in intimate 
connection with one another, and in eonjunetion 
with many other events to us unknown, and 
consequently all of them, however far removed 
from one another as to the time o( their actual 



602 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



existence, were comprehended in that one decree 
by which he determined to produce the world." — 
Hill's Lectures, vol. iii. p. 38. 

I\ow some things in this statement may be 
granted ; as for instance, that when the choice, 
speaking after the manner of men, was between 
creating the world and not creating it, it ap- 
peared fitter to God to create than not to create ; 
and that all actual events were foreseen, and 
will take place, so far as they are future, as 
they are foreseen ; but where is the connection 
between these points, and that absolute decree 
which in this passage is taken for either the 
same thing as foreseeing, or as necessarily in- 
volved in it? "The Divine decree," says Dr. 
Hill, " is the determination of the Divine will to 
produce the universe, that is, the ichole series of 
Beings and events that were then future." If 
so, it follows that it was the Divine will to pro- 
duce the fall of man, as well as his creation; 
the offences which made redemption necessary, 
as the redemption itself: to produce the destruc- 
tion of human beings, and their vices, which are 
the means of that destruction ; the salvation of 
another part of the race, and their faith and 
obedience, as the means of that salvation: for 
by "one decree, embracing at once the end and 
the means, he ordained, with perfect wisdom, all 
that was to be." This is in the true character 
of the Calvinistic theology: it dogmatizes with 
absolute confidence on some metaphysical as- 
sumption, and forgets for the time that any 
such book as the Bible, a revelation of God, by 
God himself, exists in the world. If the deter- 
mination of the Divine will, with respect to the 
creation of man, were the same kind of deter- 
mination as that which respected his fall, how, 
then, are we to account for the means taken by 
God to prevent the fall, which were no less than 
the communication of an upright and perfect 
nature to man, from which his ability to stand 
in his uprightness arose, and the threatening of 
the greatest calamity, death, in order to deter 
him from the act of offence ? How, in that case, 
are we to account for the declarations of God's 
hatred to sin, and for his own express declaration 
that he hath "no pleasure in the death of him 
that dieth ?" How, for the obstructions he has 
placed in the way of transgression, which would 
be obstructions to his own determinations, if they 
can be allowed to be obstructions at all ? How, 
for the intercession of Christ? How, for his 
tears shed over Jerusalem? Finally, how, for 
the declaration that "he willeth all men to be 
saved," and for his invitations to all, and the 
promises made to all ? Here the discrepancies 
between the metaphysical scheme and the writ- 
ten word are most strongly marked; are so 



[PART n. 



totally irreconcilable to each other, as to leave 
us to choose between the speculations of man, as 
to the operations of the Divine mind, and the 
declared will of God himself. The fact is, that 
Scripture can only be interpreted by denying 
that the determination of the Divine will is, as 
to "beings and events," the same kind of deter- 
mination ; and we are necessarily brought back 
again to the only distinction which is com- 
patible with the written word, a determination 
in God to do, and a determination to permit. 
For if we admit that the decree to effect or pro- 
duce is absolute, both "as to the end and 
means," then, besides the consequences which 
follow as above stated, and which so directly 
contradict the testimony of God himself, an- 
other equally revolting also arises, namely, that 
as the end decreed is, as we are told, most glori- 
ous to God, so the means, being controlled and 
directed to that end, are necessarily and directly 
connected with the glorification of God ; and so 
men glorify God by their vices, because by them 
they fulfil his will, and work out his designs 
according to the appointment of his "wisdom." 
That this has been boldly contended for by lead- 
ing Calvinistic divines in former times, and by 
some, though of a lower class, in the present 
day, is well known ; and that they are consistent 
in their deductions from the above premises, is 
so obvious, that it is matter of surprise that 
those Calvinists who are shocked at this conclu- 
sion should not either suspect the principles from 
which it so certainly flows, or that, admitting the 
doctrine, they should shun the explicit avowal 
of the inevitable consequence. 

The sophistry of the above statement of the 
Calvinistic view of prescience and the decrees, 
as given by Dr. Hill, lies in this, that the de- 
termination of the Divine will to produce the 
universe is made to include a determination as 
absolute "to produce the whole series of beings 
and events that were then future;" and in as- 
suming that this is involved in a perfect pre- 
science of things, as actually to exist and take 
place. But among the "belngs" to be pro- 
duced, were not only beings bound by their 
instincts, and by circumstances which they could 
not control, to act in some given manner ; but 
also beings endowed with such freedom that they 
might act in different and opposite ways, as their 
own will might determine. Either this must be 
allowed or denied. If it is denied, then man is 
not a free agent, and, therefore, not accountable 
for his personal offences, if offences those acts 
can be called, to the doing of which there is 
"a determination of the Divine will," of the 
same nature as to the "producing of the uni- 
verse" itself. This, however, is so destructive 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY. 



603 



of the nature of virtue and vice ; it so entirely 
subverts the moral government of God by merg- 
ing it into his natural government; and it so 
manifestly contradicts the word of God, which, 
from the beginning to the end, supposes a power 
bestowed on man to avoid sin, and on this esta- 
blishes his accountableness ; that, with all these 
fatal consequences hanging upon it, we may 
leave this notion to its own fate. But if any 
such freedom be allowed to man, (either actually 
enjoyed, or placed within his reach by the use 
of means which are within his power,) that he may 
both will and act differently, in any given case, 
from his ultimate volitions and the acts result- 
ing therefrom, then, cannot that which he actu- 
ally does, as a free agent, say some sinful act, 
have been "determined" in the same manner by 
the Divine will, as the "production" of the uni- 
verse and the "beings" which compose it? For 
if man is a being free to sin or not to sin, and 
it was the "determination of the Divine will" 
to produce such a being, it was his determina- 
tion to give to him this liberty of not doing that 
which he actually does ; which is wholly con- 
trary to a determination that he should act in 
one given manner, and in that alone. For here, 
on the one hand, it is alleged that the Divine 
will absolutely determines to produce certain 
" events ," and yet, on the other, it is plain that he 
absolutely determined to produce " beings" who 
should, by his will and consequent endowment, 
have in themselves the power to produce con- 
trary events : propositions which manifestly 
fight with each other, and cannot both be true. 
We must either, then, give up man's free agency 
and true accountability, or this absolute deter- 
mination of events. The former cannot be re- 
nounced without involving the consequences 
above stated ; and the abandoning of the latter 
brings us to the only conclusion which agrees 
with the word of God — that the acts of free 
agents are not determined, but foreseen and per- 
mitted; and are thus taken up, not as the acts 
of God, but as the acts of men, into the Divine 
government. "Ye thought evil against me," 
says Joseph to his brethren, "but God meant it 
unto good." Thus the principle which vitiates 
Dr. Hill's statement is detected. Grotius has 
much better observed, " When we say that God 
is the cause of all things, we mean of all such 
things as have a real existence ; which is no 
reason why those things themselves should not 
be the cause of some accidents, such as actions 
are. God created men, and some other in- 
telligences superior to man, with a liberty of 
acting; which liberty of acting is not in itself 
evil, but may be the cause of something that 
is evil; and to make Hon the author of evils of 



this kind, which are called moral evils, is the 
highest wickedness." — Truth of the Christian Re- 
ligion, s. 8. 

Perhaps the notions which Calvinists form as 
to the will may be regarded as a consequence 
of the predestinarian branch of their system; 
but whether they are among the metaphysical 
sources of their error, or consequents upon it, 
they must here have a brief notice. 

If the doctrine just refuted were allowed, 
namely, that all events are produced by the 
determination of the Divine will; and that the 
end and means are bound up in "one decree;" 
the predestinarian had sagacity enough to dis- 
cern that the volitions, as well as the acts of 
men, must be placed equally under bondage, to 
make the scheme consistent; and that, when- 
ever any moral action is the end proposed, the 
choice of the will, as the means to that end, must 
come under the same appointment and determi- 
nation. It is, indeed, not denied that creatures 
may lose the power to will that which is morally 
good. Such is the state of devils ; and such 
would have been the state of man, had he been 
left wholly to the consequences of the fall. The 
inability is, however, not a natural, but a moral 
one ; for volition, as a power of the mind, is 
not destroyed, but brought so completely under 
the dominion of a corrupt nature, as not to be 
morally capable of choosing any thing but evil. 
If man is not in this condition, it is owing, not 
to the remains of original goodness, as some sup- 
pose, but to that "grace of God" which is the 
result of the "free gift" bestowed upon all 
men ; but that the power to choose that which 
is good, in some respects, and as a first step to 
the entire and exclusive choice of good in the 
highest degree, is in man's possession, must be 
certainly concluded from the calls so often made 
upon him in the word of God to change his con- 
duct, and, in order to this, his will. "Hear, ye 
deaf, and look, ye blind," is the exhortation of a 
prophet, which, while it charges both spiritual 
deafness and blindness upon the Jews, supposes 
a power existing in them both of opening the 
eyes and unstopping the ears. Such are all the 
exhortations to repentance and faith addressed 
to sinners, and the threatenings consequent upon 
continued impenitence and unbelief; which 
equally suppose a power of considering, willing, 
and acting, in all things adequate to the com- 
mencement of a religious course. From what- 
ever source it may be derived — and no other can 
be assigned to it consistently with the Scriptures 
than the grace of God — this power must he expe- 
rienced to the full extent of the eall and the 
obligation to these duties. A power of ohoOBWg 
only to do evil, and of remaining impenitent, 



60-1 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



[part lt, 

cannot be reconciled to such exhortations. This \ maining in its present state, can have no such 
would but be a mockery of men, and a mere ! tendency, yet the original act, or series of acts 
show of equitable government on the part of by which this state of their will and affections 
God, without any thing correspondent to this j was induced, being their own, and the result of 
appearance of equity in point of fact. The Cal- ! a deliberate choice between moral good and evil 
vinistic doctrine, however, takes another course, both being in their own power, they are justly 
As the sin and the destruction of the reprobate held to be culpable for all that follows, having 

had, originally, the power to avoid both the first 
sin and all others consequent upon it. The 
same maybe said of sinful men, who have formed 



is determined by the decree, and their will is 
either left to its natural proneness to the choice 
of evil, or is, by coaction, impelled to it, so the 
salvation of the elect being absolutely decreed, 
the will, at the appointed time, comes under an 
irresistible impulse which carries it to the choice 
of good. Nor is this only an occasional influ- 
ence, leaving men afterward, or by intervals, to 
freedom of choice, which might be allowed ; 
but, in all cases, and at all times, the will, when 
directed to good, moves only under the unfrus- 
trable impulses of grace. That man, therefore, 
has no choice, or at least no alternative in either 
case, is the doctrine assumed; and no other 
view can be consistently taken by those who 
admit the scheme of absolute predestination. To 
one class of objects is the will determined ; no 
other being, in either case, possible ; and thus 
one course of action, fulfilling the decree of God, 
is the only possible result, or the decree would 
not be absolute and fixed. 

Some Calvinists have adopted all the con- 
sequences which follow this view of the sub- 
ject. They ascribe the actions and volitions of 
man to God, and regard sinful men as impelled 
to a necessity of sinning, in order to the inflic- 
tion of that punishment which they think will 
glorify the sovereign wrath of Him who made 
"the wicked" intentionally "for the day of evil." 
Enough has been said in refutation of this gross 
and blasphemous opinion, which, though it in- 
evitably follows from absolute predestination, 
the more modest writers of the same school have 
endeavored to hide under various guises, or to 
reconcile to some show of justice by various 
subtilties. 

It has, for instance, been contended that as, in 
the case of transgressors, the evil acts done by 
them are the choice of their corrupt will, they 
are, therefore, done willingly ; and that they are 
in consequence punishable, although their will 
could not but choose them. This may be al- 
lowed to be true in the case of devils, supposing 
them at first to have voluntarily corrupted an 
innocent nature endowed with the power of 
maintaining its innocence, and that they were 
under no absolute decree determining them to 
this offence. For though now their will is so 
much under the control of their bad passions, 
and is in itself so vicious that it has no disposi- 
tion at all to good, and from their nature, re- 



in themselves, by repeated acts of evil, at first 
easily avoided, various habits to which the will 
opposes a decreasing resistance in proportion as 
they acquire strength. Such persons, too, as are 
spoken of in the Epistle to the Hebrews, those 
whom "it is impossible to renew unto repent- 
ance," may be regarded as approaching very 
nearly to the state of apostate spirits, and, being 
left without any of the aids of that Holy Spirit 
whom they have "quenched," cannot be sup- 
posed capable of willing good. Yet are they 
themselves justly chargeable with this state of 
their wills, and all the evils resulting from it. 
But the case of devils is widely different from that 
of men, who, by their hereditary corruption, and 
the fall of human nature, to which they were 
not consenting parties, come into the world with 
this infirm, and, indeed, perverse state of the 
will, as to all good. It is not their personal 
fault that they are born with a will averse from 
good ; and it cannot be their personal fault that 
they continue thus inclined only to evil, if no as- 
sistance has been afforded, no gracious influence 
imparted, to counteract this fault of nature, and 
to set the will so far free that it can choose 
either the good urged upon it by the authority 
and exciting motives of the gospel, or, "making 
light" of that, to yield itself, in opposition to 
conviction, to the evil to which it is by nature 
prone. It is not denied that the will, in its 
purely natural state, and independent of all 
grace communicated to man through Christ, can 
incline only to evil ; but the question is, whether 
it is so left ; and whether, if this be contended 
for, the circumstance of a sinful act being the 
act of a will not able to determine otherwise, 
from whatever cause that may arise, whether 
from the influence of circumstances or from co- 
action, or from its own invincible depravity, ren- 
ders him punishable who never had the means 
of preventing his will from lapsing into this dis- 
eased and vitiated state ; who was born with this 
moral disease, and who, by an absolute decree, 
has been excluded from all share in the remedy. 
This is the only simple and correct way of view- 
ing the subject; and it is quite independent of 
all metaphysical hypotheses as to the will. The 
argument is, that an act which has the consent 



CH. XXVIII.J 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



G05 



of the will is punishable, although the will can 
only choose evil: we reply, that this is only true 
where the time of trial is past, as in devils and 
apostates ; and then only because these are per- 
sonally guilty of having so vitiated their wills as 
to render them incapable of good. But the case 
of men who have fallen by the fault of another, 
and who are still in a state of trial, is one totally 
different. The sentence is passed upon devils, 
and it is as good as passed upon such apostates 
as the apostle describes in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews ; but the mass of mankind are still pro- 
bationers, and are appointed to be judged ac- 
cording to their works, whether good or evil. 
We deny, then, first, that they are in any case 
left without the power of willing good ; and we 
deny it on the authority of Scripture. For in 
no sense can "life and death be set before us," 
in order that we may "choose life," if man is 
wholly derelict by the grace of God, and if he 
remains under his natural, and, but for the grace 
of God given to all mankind, his invincible in- 
clination to evil. For if this be the natural state 
of mankind, and if to a part of them that reme- 
dial grace is denied, then is not "life" set be- 
fore them as an object of "choice;" and if to 
another part that grace is so given that it irre- 
sistibly and constantly works so as to compel the 
will to choose predetermined and absolutely ap- 
pointed acts, no " death" is set before them as an 
object of choice. If, therefore, according to the 
Scriptures, both life and death are set before 
men, then have they power to choose or refuse 
either, which is conclusive, on the one hand, 
against the doctrine of the total dereliction of 
the reprobate, and, on the other, against the un- 
frustrable operation of grace upon the elect. 
So, also, when our Lord says, " I would have 
gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens 
under her wings, and ye would not," the notion 
that men who finally perish have no power of 
willing that which is good is totally disproved. 
The blame is manifestly, and beyond all the arts 
of cavilling criticism, laid upon their not will- 
ing in a contrary manner, which would be false 
upon the Calvinistic hypothesis. "I would not, 
and ye could not," ought, in that case, to have 
been the reading, since they are bound to one 
determination only, either by the external or in- 
ternal influence of another, or by a natural and 
involuntary disease of the will, for which no 
remedy was ever provided. 

Thus it is decided by the word of God itself 
that men who perish might have "chosen life." 
It is confirmed, also, by natural reason ; for it is 
most cgregiously to trifle with the common sense 
of mankind to call that a righteous procedure in 
God which would by all men be condemned sua ;i 



monstrous act of tyranny and oppression in a 
human judge ; namely, to punish capitally, as 
for a personal offence, those who never could 
will or act otherwise, being impelled by an in- 
vincible and incurable natural impulse over which 
they never had any control. Nor is the case at 
all amended by the quibble that they act will- 
ingly — that is, with consent of the will ; for since 
the will is under a natural and irresistible power 
to incline only one way, obedience is full as 
much out of their power by this state of the will, 
which they did not bring upon themselves, as if 
they were restrained from all obedience to the 
law of God by an external and irresistible im- 
pulse always acting upon them. 

The case, thus kept upon the basis of plain 
Scripture, and the natural reason of mankind, 
stands, as we have said, clear of all metaphysical 
subtil ties, and cannot be subjected to their de- 
termination ; but as attempts have been made to 
establish the doctrine of necessity, from the act- 
ual phenomena of the human will, we may glance, 
also, at this philosophic attempt to give plausi- 
bility to the predestinarian hypothesis. 

The philosophic doctrine is, that the will is 
swayed by motives : that motives arise from cir- 
cumstances : that circumstances are ordered by 
a power above us, and beyond our control ; and 
that, therefore, our volitions necessarily follow 
an order and chain of events appointed and de- 
creed by infinite wisdom. President Edwards, 
in his well-known work on the Will, applied this 
philosophy in aid of Calvinism ; and has been 
largely followed by the divines of that school. 
But who does not see that this attempt to find a 
refuge in the doctrine of philosophical necessity 
affords no shelter to the Calvinian system, when 
pressed either by Scripture or by arguments 
founded upon the acknowledged principles of 
justice ? For what matters it whether the will 
is obliged to one class of volitions by the imme- 
diate influence of God, or by the denial of his 
remedial influence — the doctrine of the elder 
Calvinists — or that it is obliged to a certain class 
of volitions by motives which are irresistible in 
their operation, which result from an arrange- 
ment of circumstances ordered by God, and 
which we cannot control? Take which theory 
you please, you are involved in the same difficul- 
ties; for the result is, that men can neither will 
nor act otherwise than they do, being, in one 
case, inevitably disabled by an act of God, and 
in the other, bound by a chain of events esta- 
blished by an almighty power. The advooates 
for this philosophic theory of the will must be 
content to take this conclusion, therefore, and 
reconcile it as they can with the Scriptures ; but 
thev have the same task as their elder brethren 



606 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART II, 



of the same faith, and hare made it no easier by 
their philosophy. 

It is in rain, too, that they refer us to our own 
consciousness in proof of this theory. Nothing 
is more directly contradicted by what passes in 
every man's mind ; and if we may take the terms 
human language has used on these subjects as 
an indication of the general feelings of mankind, 
it is contradicted by the experience of all ages 
and countries. For if the will is thus absolutely 
dependent upon motives, and motives arise out 
of uncontrollable circumstances, for men to 
praise or to blame each other is a manifest ab- 
surdity ; and yet all languages abound in such 
terms. So, also, there can be no such thing as 
conscience, which, upon this scheme, is a popular 
delusion which a better philosophy might have 
dispelled. For why do I blame or commend my- 
self in my inward thoughts any more than I 
censure or praise others, if I am, as to my choice, 
but the passive creature of motives and prede- 
termined circumstances ? 

But the sophistry is easily detected. The no- 
tion inculcated is, that motives influence the will 
just as an additional weight thrown into an even 
scale poises it and inclines the beam. This is 
the favorite metaphor of the necessitarians ; yet, 
to make the comparison good, they ought to have 
first proved the will to be as passive as the 
balance, or, in other words, they should have 
annihilated the distinction between mind and 
matter. But this necessary connection between 
motive and volition may be denied. For what 
are motives, as rightly understood here? Not 
physical causes, as a weight thrown into a scale ; 
but reasons of choice, views and conceptions of 
things in the mind, which, themselves, do not 
work the will as a machine, but in consideration 
of which the mind itself wills and determines. 
But if the mind itself were obliged to determine 
by the strongest motive, as the beam is to incline 
by the heaviest weight, it would be obliged to 
determine always by the best reason ; for motive 
being but a reason of action considered in the 
mind, then the best reason, being in the nature 
of things the strongest, must always predomi- 
nate. But this is, plainly, contrary to fact and 
experience. If it were not, all men would act 
reasonably, and none foolishly ; or, at least, there 
would be no faults among them but those of the 
understanding, none of the heart and affections. 
The weakest reason, however, too genei'ally suc- 
ceeds when appetite and corrupt affection are 
present ; that is to say, the weakest motive. For 
if this be not allowed, we must say that under 
the influence of appetite the weakest reason al- 
ways appears the strongest, which is also false, in 
fact ; for then there would be no sins committed 



: against judgment and conviction ; and that many 
of our sins are of this description, our consciences 
I painfully convict us. That the mind wills and 
| acts generally under the influence of motives, 
may, therefore, be granted ; but that it is pas- 
sive, and operated upon by them necessarily, is 
disproved by the fact of our often acting under 
the weakest reason or motive, which is the 
character of all sins against our judgment. 

But were we even to admit that present rea- 
sons or motives operate irresistibly upon the will, 
the necessary connection between motive and 
volition would not be established, unless it could 
be proved that we have no power to displace one 
motive by another, nor to control those circum- 
stances from which motives flow. Yet who will 
say that a person may not shun evil company, 
and fly from many temptations ? Either this 
must be allowed, or else it must be a link in the 
necessary chain of events fixed by a superior 
power, that we should seek and not fly evil com- 
pany: and so the exhortations, "If sinners 
entice thee, consent thou not," and " Go not in 
the way of evil men," are very impertinent, and 
only prove that Solomon was no philosopher. 
But we are all conscious that we have the power 
to alter, and control, and avoid the force of 
motives. If not, why does a man resist the 
same temptation at one time, and yield to it at 
another, without any visible change of the cir- 
cumstances ? He can also both change his cir- 
cumstances by shunning evil company ; and fly 
the occasions of temptation; and control that 
motive at one time to which he yields at another, 
under similar circumstances. Nay, he some- 
times resists a powerful temptation, which is the 
same thing as resisting a powerful motive, and 
yields at another to a feeble one, and is conscious 
that he does so : a sufficient proof that there is 
an irregularity and corruptness in the self-deter- 
mining, active power of the mind, independent of 
motive. Still further, the motive or reason for 
an action may be a bad one, and yet be prevalent 
for want of the presence of a better reason or 
motive to lead to a contrary choice and act ; but 
in how many instances is this the true cause why 
a better reason or stronger motive is not present 
— that we have lived thoughtless and vain lives, 
little considering the good or evil of things? 
And if so, then the thoughtless might have been 
more thoughtful, and the ignorant might have 
acquired better knowledge, and thereby have 
placed themselves under the influence of stronger 
and better motives. Thus this theory does not 
accord with the facts of our own consciousness, 
but contradicts them. It is, also, refuted by 
every part of the moral history of man ; and it 
may be therefore concluded that those specula- 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 



607 



tions on the human will, to which the predesti- 
narian theory has driven its advocates, are 
equally opposed to the words of Scripture, to the 
philosophy of mind, to our observation of what 
passes in others, and to our own convictions. 

Our moral liberty manifestly consists in the 
united power of thinking and reasoning, and of 
choosing and acting upon such thinking and 
reasoning : so that the clearer our thought and 
conception is of what is fit and right, and the 
more constantly our choice is determined by it, 
the more nearly we rise to the highest acts and 
exercises of this liberty. The best beings have 
therefore the highest degree of moral liberty, 
since no motive to will or act wrong is any thing 
else but a violation of this established and origi- 
nal connection between right reason, choice, and 
conduct; and if any necessity bind the irrational 
motive upon the will, it is either the result of bad 
voluntary habit, for which we are accountable, 
or necessity of nature and circumstances, for 
which we are not accountable. In the former 
case the actually influencing motive is evitable, 
and the theory of the necessitarians is disproved: 
in the latter it is confirmed; but then man is 
neither responsible to his fellow-man, nor to God. 

Certain notions as to the Divine sovereignty 
have also been resorted to by Calvinists, in order 
to render that scheme plausible which cuts off 
the greater part of the human race from the 
hope of salvation by the absolute decree of God. 

That the sovereignty of God is a scriptural 
doctrine, no one can deny ; but it does not follow 
that the notions which men please to form of it 
should be received as scriptural ; for religious 
errors consist not only in denying the doctrines 
of the word of God, but also in interpreting 
them fallaciously. 

The Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty 
appears to be, his doing what he wills, only be- 
cause he wills it. So Calvin himself has stated 
the case, as we have noticed above ; but as this 
view is repugnant to all worthy notions of an 
infinitely wise Being, so it has no countenance 
in Scripture. The doctrine which we are there 
taught is, that God's sovereignty consists in his 
doing many things by virtue of his own supreme 
right and dominion ; but that this right is under 
the direction of his "counsel" or "toisdom." The 
brightest act of sovereignty is that of creation, 
and one in which, if in any, mere will might 
seem to have the chief place ; yet even in this 
act, by which myriads of beings of diverse 
powers and capacities were produced, we are 
taught that all was done in "wisdom." Nor can 
it be said that the sovereignty of God in crea- 
tion is uncontrolled by either justice or good- 
ness. If the final cause of creation had been 



the misery of all sentient creatures, and all its 
contrivances had tended to that end ; if, for in- 
stance, every sight had been disgusting, every 
smell a stench, every sound a scream, and every 
necessary function of life had been performed 
with pain, we must necessarily have referred the 
creation of such a world to a malignant being ; 
and if we are obliged to think it impossible that 
a good being could have employed his almighty 
power with the direct intention to inflict misery, 
we then concede that his acts of sovereignty are, 
by the very perfection of his nature, under the 
direction of his goodness, as to all creatures 
potentially existing, or actually existing while 
still innocent. Nor can we think it borne out 
by Scripture, or by the reasonable notions of 
mankind, that the exercise of God's sovereignty 
in the creation of things is exempt from any 
respect to justice — a quality of the Divine nature 
which is nothing but his essential rectitude in 
exercise. It is true, that as existence, under all 
circumstances in which to exist is better upon 
the whole than not to exist, leaves the creature 
no claim to have been otherwise than it is made ; 
and that God has a sovereign right to make one 
being an archangel, and another an insect: so 
that "the thing formed" may not say "to him 
that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ?" 
it could deserve nothing before creation, its 
being not having commenced : all that it is, and 
has, (its existent state being better than non- 
existence,) is therefore a boon conferred; and in 
matters of grace, no axiom can be more clear 
than that he who gratuitously bestows has the 
right "to do what he will with his own." But 
every creature, having been formed without any 
consent of its own, if it be innocent of offence, 
either from the rectitude of its nature, or from a 
natural incapacity of offending, as not being a 
moral agent, appears to have a claim, in natural 
right, upon exemption from such pains and suf- 
ferings as would render existence a worse con- 
dition than never to have been called out of 
nothing. For as a benevolent being, which God 
is acknowledged to be, cannot make a creature 
with such an intention and contrivance that, by 
its very constitution, it must necessarily be 
wholly miserable — and we see in this that his 
sovereignty is regulated by his goodness as to 
the commencement of the existence of sentient 
creatures — so, from the moment they begin to 
be, the government of God over them commences, 
and sovereignty in government necessarily grounds 
itself upon the principles of equity and justice, 
and "the Judge of all the earth'' must and 
xoill "do right." 

This is tho manifest doctrine oi' Scripture; 
for although Almighty God often gives "no 



608 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



account of his matters," nor, in some instances, 
admits us to know how he is both just and gra- 
cious in his administration, yet are we referred 
constantly to those general declarations of his 
own word, which assure us that he is so — that we 
may "walk by faith," and wait for that period 
when, after the faith and patience of good men 
have been sufficiently tried, the manifestation 
of these facts shall take place to our comfort and 
to his glory. In many respects, so far as we are 
concerned, we see no other reason for his pro- 
ceedings than that he so wills to act. But the 
error into which our brethren often fall, is to 
conclude, from their want of information in such 
cases, that God acts merely because he wills so 
to act : that because he gives not those reasons 
for his conduct which we have no right to de- 
mand, he acts without any reasons at all ; and 
because we are not admitted to the secrets of his 
council-chamber, that his government is per- 
fectly arbitrary, and that the main-spring of his 
leading dispensations is to make a show of power : 
a conclusion which implies a most unworthy 
notion of God, which he has himself contra- 
dicted in the most explicit manner. Even his 
most mysterious proceedings are called "judg- 
ments;" and he is said to work all things 
"after the counsel of his own will" — a colla- 
tion of words which sufficiently show that not 
blind will, but will subject to "counsel" is that 
sovereign will which governs the world. 

"Whenever, therefore, God acts as a governor, 
as a rewarder, or punisher, he no longer acts as 
a mere sovereign, by his own sole will and plea- 
sure, but as an impartial judge, guided in all 
things by invariable justice. 

"Yet it is true that in some cases mercy re- 
joices over justice, although severity never does. 
God may reward more, but he will never punish 
more than strict justice requires. , It may be 
allowed that God acts as sovereign in convincing 
some souls of sin, arresting them in their mad 
career by his resistless power. It seems, also, 
that at the moment of our conversion he acts 
irresistibly. There may likewise be many irre- 
sistible touches in the course of our Christian 
warfare ; but still, as St. Paul might have been 
either obedient or 'disobedient unto the heavenly 
vision,' so every individual may, after all that 
God has done, either improve his grace, or make 
it of none effect. 

"Whatever, therefore, it has pleased God to 
do of his sovereign pleasure, as Creator of hea- 
ven and earth, and whatever his mercy may do 
on particular occasions, over and above what 
justice requires, the general rule stands firm as 
the pillars of heaven: 'The Judge of all the 
earth will do right:' 'he will judge the world in 



[past II. 

righteousness,' and every man therein, according 
to the strictest justice. He will punish no man 
for doing any thing which he could not possibly 
avoid ; neither for omitting any thing which he 
could not possibly do. Every punishment sup- 
poses the offender might have avoided the offence 
for which he is punished ; otherwise, to punish 
him would be palpably unjust, and inconsistent 
with the character Of God our governor." — 
Wesley's Works, vol. vi., p. 136. 

The case of heathen nations has sometimes 
been referred to by Calvinists, as presenting 
equal difficulties to those urged against their 
scheme of election and reprobation. But the 
cases are not at all parallel, nor can they be 
made so, unless it could be proved that heathens, 
as such, are inevitably excluded from the kingdom 
of heaven ; which is not, as some of them seem 
to suppose, a conceded point. Those, indeed, if 
there be any such, who, believing in the univer- 
sal redemption of mankind, should allow this, 
would be most inconsistent with themselves, and 
give up many of those principles on which they 
successfully contend against the doctrine of ab- 
solute reprobation; but the argument lies in 
small compass, and is to be determined by the 
word of God, and not by the speculations of 
men. The actual state of pagan nations is affect- 
ingly bad; but nothing can be deduced from 
what they are in fact against their salvability ; 
for although there is no ground to hope for the 
salvation of great numbers of them, actual sal- 
vation is one thing, and possible salvation is 
another. Nor does it affect this question, if we 
see not how heathens may be saved: that is, by 
what means repentance, and faith, and righteous- 
ness should be in any such degree wrought in 
them, as that they shall become acceptable to 
God. The dispensation of religion under which 
all those nations are to whom the gospel has 
never been sent, continues to be the patriarchal 
dispensation. That men were saved under that 
in former times, we know ; and at what point, 
if any, a religion becomes so far corrupted, and 
truth so far extinct, as to leave no means of sal- 
vation to men, nothing to call forth a true faith 
in principle, and obedience to what remains known 
or knowable of the original law, no one has the 
right to determine, unless he can adduce some 
authority from Scripture. That authority is 
certainly not available to the conclusion that, in 
point of fact, the means of salvation are utterly 
withdrawn from heathens. We may say that a 
murderous, adulterous, and idolatrous heathen 
will be shut out from the kingdom of heaven : 
we must say this, on the express exclusion of all 
I such characters from future blessedness by the 
I word of God ; but it would be little to the pur- 



CH. XXVIII.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



609 



pose to say that, as far as we know, all of them 
are wicked and idolatrous. As far as we know 
they may, but we do not know the whole case ; and 
were these charges universally true, yet the ques- 
tion is not what the heathen are, but what they 
have the means of becoming. We indeed know 
that all are not equally vicious ; nay, that some 
virtuous heathens have been found in all ages, 
and some earnest and anxious inquirers after truth, 
dissatisfied with the notions prevalent in their 
own countries respectively ; and what these few 
were, the rest might have been likewise. But if 
we knew no such instances of superior virtue 
and eager desire of religious information among 
them, the true question, "What degree of truth 
is, after all, attainable by them ?" would still 
remain a question which must be determined not 
so much by our knowledge of facts, which may 
be very obscure, but such principles and gene- 
ral declarations as we find applicable to the case 
in the word of God. 

If all knowledge of right and wrong, and all 
gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, and all 
objects of faith, have passed away from the 
heathen, through the fault of their ancestors 
"not liking to retain God in their knowledge," 
and without the present race having been parties 
to this wilful abandonment of truth, then they 
would appear no longer to be accountable crea- 
tures, being neither under law nor under grace ; 
but, as we find it a doctrine of Scripture that all 
men are responsible to God, and that the "whole 
world" will be judged at the last day, we are 
bound to admit the accountability of all, and, 
with that, the remains of law and the existence 
of a merciful government toward the heathen on 
the part of God. With this the doctrine of St. 
Paul accords. No one can take stronger views 
of the actual danger and the corrupt state of the 
Gentiles than he ; yet he affirms that the Divine 
law had not perished wholly from among them : 
that though they had received no revealed law, 
yet they had a law "written on their hearts;" 
meaning, no doubt, the traditionary law, the 
equity of which their consciences attested ; and, 
further, that though they had not the written 
law, yet that, "by nature," that is, "without an 
outward rule, though this, also, strictly speak- 
ing, is by preventing grace," (Wesley's Notes, 
in he.,) they were capable of doing all the things 
contained in the law. He affirms, too, that all 
such Gentiles as were thus obedient should be 
"justified, in the day when God shall judge the 
secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to his 
gospel." The possible obedience and the pos- 
sible "justification" of heathens who have no 
written revelation, are points, therefore, dis- 
tinctly affirmed by the apostle in his discourse 
39 



in the second chapter of the Epistle to the 
Romans, and the whole matter of God's sove- 
reignty, as to the heathen, is reduced, not to the 
leaving of any portion of our race without the 
means of salvation, and then punishing them for 
sins which they have no means of avoiding ; but 
to the fact of his having given superior advan- 
tages to us, and inferior ones only to them : a 
proceeding which we see exemplified in the most 
enlightened of Christian nations every day ; for 
neither every part of the same nation is equally 
favored with the means of grace, nor are all the 
families living in the same town and neighbor- 
hood equally circumstanced as to means of re- 
ligious influence and improvement. The prin- 
ciple of this inequality is, however, far different 
from that on which Calvinistic reprobation is 
sustained ; since it involves no inevitable exclu- 
sion of any individual from the kingdom of God, 
and because the general principle of God's ad- 
ministration in such cases is elsewhere laid down 
to be, the requiring of much where much is 
given, and the requiring of little where little is 
given — a principle of the strictest equity. 

An unguarded opinion as to the irresisti- 
bility of grace, and the passiveness of man in 
conversion, has also been assumed, and made to 
give an air of plausibility to the predestinarian 
scheme. It is argued, if our salvation is of God 
and not of ourselves, then those only can be 
saved to whom God gives the grace of conversion ; 
and the rest, not having this grace afforded 
them, are, by the inscrutable counsel of God, 
passed by, and reprobated. 

This is an argument a posteriori — from the as- 
sumed passiveness of man in conversion to the 
election of a part only of mankind to life. The 
argument a priori is from partial election to life 
to the doctrine of irresistible grace, as the means 
by which the Divine decree is carried into effect. 
The doctrine of such an election has already been 
refuted, and it will be easy to show that it de- 
rives no support from the assumption that grace 
must work irresistibly in man, in order that the 
honor of our salvation may be secured to God, 
which is the plausible dress in which the doctrine 
is generally presented. 

It is allowed, and all scriptural advocates of 
the universal redemption of mankind will join 
with the Calvinists in maintaining the doctrine, 
that every disposition and inclination to good 
which originally existed in the nature of man is 
lost by the fall ; that all men, in their simply 
natural state, "are dead in trespasses and sins," 
and have neither the will nor the power to turn 
to God; and that no one is sufficient oi' himself 
to think or do any thing of a saying tendenoy. 
But as all men are required to do those things 



610 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part n. 



■which have a saving tendency, we contend that 
the grace to do them has been bestowed upon 
all. Equally sacred is the doctrine to be held, 
that no person can repent or truly believe except 
under the influence of the Spirit of God ; and 
that we have no ground of boasting in ourselves, 
but that all the glory of our salvation, com- 
menced and consummated, is to be given to God 
alone, as the result of the freeness and riches of 
his grace. 

It will also be freely allowed that the visita- 
tions of the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit 
are vouchsafed in the first instance, and in num- 
berless other subsequent cases, quite independ- 
ent of our seeking them or desire for them ; and 
that when our thoughts are thus turned to 
serious considerations, and various exciting and 
quickened feelings are produced within us, we 
are often wholly passive; and, also, that men 
are sometimes suddenly and irresistibly awakened 
to a sense of their guilt and danger by the Spirit 
of God, either through the preaching of the 
word instrumentally, or through other means, 
and sometimes, even, independent of any ex- 
ternal means at all ; and are thus constrained to 
cry out, "What must I do to be saved?" All 
this is confirmed by plain verity of holy writ ; 
and is, also, as certain a matter of experience as 
that the motions of the Holy Spirit do often 
silently intermingle themselves with our thoughts, 
reasonings, and consciences, and breathe their 
milder persuasions upon our affections. 

From these premises the conclusions which 
legitimately flow are in direct opposition to the 
Calvinistic hypothesis. They establish, 

1. The justice of God in the condemnation of 
men, which that doctrine leaves under a dark 
and impenetrable cloud. More or less of these 
influences from on high visit the finally impeni- 
tent, so as to render their destruction their own 
act by resisting them. This is proved, from the 
"Spirit" having "strove" with those who were 
finally destroyed by the flood of Noah ; from the 
case of the finally impenitent Jews and their an- 
cestors, who are charged with "always resisting 
the Holy Ghost;" from the case of the apostates 
mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, who 
are said to have done " despite unto the Spirit of 
grace;" and from the solemn warnings given to 
men in the New Testament, not to " grieve" and 
" quench" the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, it ap- 
pears that the destruction of men is attributed to 
their resistance of those influences of the Holy 
Spirit, which, but for that resistance, would have 
been saving, according to the design of God in 
imparting them, then is the justice of God mani- 
fested in their punishment ; and it follows, also, 
that his grace so works in men as to be both suf- 



ficient to lead them into a state of salvation, and 
even actually to place them in this state, and yet 
so as to be capable of being finally and fatally 
frustrated. 

2. These premises, also, secure the glory of 
our salvation to the grace of God ; but not by 
implying the Calvinistic notion of the continued 
and uninterrupted irresistibility of the influence 
of grace and the passiveness of man, so as to de- 
prive him of his agency ; but by showing that 
his agency, even when rightly directed, is up- 
held and influenced by the superior power of 
God, and yet so as to be still his own. For, in 
the instance of the mightiest visitation we can 
produce from Scripture, that of St. Paul, we see 
where the irresistible influence terminated, and 
where his own agency recommenced. Under the 
impulse of the conviction struck into his mind, 
as well as under the dazzling brightness which 
fell upon his eyes, he was passive, and the effect 
produced for the time necessarily followed; but 
all the actions consequent upon this were the 
results of deliberation and personal choice. He 
submits to be taught in the doctrine of Christ : 
"he confers not with flesh and blood:" "he is 
not disobedient to the heavenly vision:" "he 
faints not" under the burdensome ministry he 
had received; and he "keeps his body under 
subjection, lest, after having preached to others, 
he should himself become a castaway." All these 
expressions, so descriptive of consideration and 
choice, show that the irresistible impulse was 
not permanent, and that he was subsequently left 
to improve it or not, though under a powerful 
but still a resistible motive operating upon him 
to remain faithful. 

For the gentler emotions produced by the 
Spirit, these are, as the experience of all Christ- 
ians testifies, the ordinary and general manner 
in which the Holy Spirit carries on his work in 
man ; and if all good desires, resolves, and aspi- 
rations are from him, and not from our own 
nature, (and, if we are utterly fallen, from our 
own nature they cannot be,) then if any man is 
conscious of having ever checked good desires, 
and of having opposed his own convictions and 
better feelings, he has in himself abundant proof 
of the resistibility of grace, and of the super- 
ability of those good inclinations which the 
Spirit is pleased to impart. He is equally con- 
scious of the power of complying with them, 
though still in the strength of grace, which yet, 
while it works in him " to will and to do," neither 
wills nor acts for him, nor even by him, as a pas- 
sive instrument. For if men were wholly and 
at all times passive under Divine influence, not 
merely in the reception of it, for all are, in that 
respect, passive, but in the actings of it to prac- 



C£. XXIX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



611 



tical ends, then would there be nothing to mark 
the difference between the righteous and the 
wicked but an act of God, which is utterly irre- 
concilable to the Scriptures. They call the 
former "obedient," the latter "disobedient;" 
one "willing," the other "unwilling;" and pro- 
mise or threaten accordingly. They attribute 
the destruction of the one to their refusal of the 
grace of God, and the salvation of the other, as 
the instrumental cause, to their acceptance of it ; 
and to urge that that personal act by which we re- 
ceive the grace of Christ detracts from his glory 
as our Saviour by attributing our salvation to 
ourselves, is to speak as absurdly as if we should 
say that the act of obedience and faith required 
of the man who was commanded to stretch out 
his withered arm, detracted from the glory 
of Christ's healing virtue, by which, indeed, 
the power of complying with the command, 
and the condition of his being healed, was im- 
parted. 

It is by such reasonings, made plausible to 
many minds by an affectation of metaphysical 
depth and subtilty, or by pretensions of magnify- 
ing the sovereignty and grace of God, (often, we 
doubt not, very sincere,) that the theory of elec- 
tion and reprobation, as held by the followers of 
Calvin, with some shades of difference, but in 
all substantially the same, has had currency 
given to it in the Church of Christ in these latter 
ages. How unsound and how contrary to the 
Scriptures they are, may appear from that brief 
refutation of them just given ; but I repeat what 
was said above, that we are never to forget that 
this system has generally had interwoven with 
it many of the most vital points of Christianity. 
It is this which has kept it in existence ; for 
otherwise it had never, probably, held itself up 
against the opposing evidence of so many plain 
scriptures, and that sense of the benevolence 
and equity of God which his own revelations, as 
well as natural reason, has riveted in the con- 
victions of mankind. In one respect the Cal- 
vinistic and Socinian schemes have tacitly con- 
fessed the evidence of the word of God to be 
against them. The latter has shrunk from the 
letter and common-sense interpretation of Scrip- 
ture within the clouds raised by a licentious 
criticism: the other has chosen rather to find 
refuge in the mists of metaphysical theories. 
Nothing is, however, here meant by this juxta- 
po r ion of theories, so contrary to each other, 
but that both thus confess that the prima facie 
evidence afforded by the word of God is not in 
their favor. If we intended more by thus 
naming on the same page systems so opposite, 
one of which, with all its faults, contains all 
that truth by which men may be saved, while 



the other excludes it, "we should offend against 
the generation of the children of God." 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

REDEMPTION — FURTHER BENEFITS. 

Having endeavored to establish the doctrine 
of the universal redemption of the human race, 
the enumeration of the leading blessings which 
flow from it may now be resumed. We have 
already spoken of justification, adoption, regene- 
ration, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, and we 
proceed to another as distinctly marked and 
as graciously promised in the Holy Scriptures : 
this is the entire sanctification or the per- 
fected holiness of believers; and as this doc- 
trine, in some of its respects, has been the sub- 
ject of controversy, the scriptural evidence of it 
must be appealed to and examined. Happily for 
us, a subject of so great importance is not in- 
volved in obscurity. 

That a distinction exists between a regenerate 
state and a state of entire and perfect holiness, 
will be generally allowed. Regeneration, we 
have seen, is concomitant with justification ; but 
the apostles, in addressing the body of believers 
in the Churches to whom they wrote their epis- 
tles, set before them, both in the prayers they 
offer in their behalf, and in the exhortations 
they administer, a still higher degree of deliver- 
ance from sin, as well as a higher growth in 
Christian virtues. Two passages only need be 
quoted to prove this : 1 Thess. v. 23 : "And the 
very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I 
pray God your whole spirit and soul and body 
be preserved blameless unto the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. vii. 1: "Having 
these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse 
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 
In both these passages deliverance from sin is 
the subject spoken of; and the prayer in one in- 
stance, and the exhortation in the other, goes 
to the extent of the entire sanctification of "the 
soul" and "spirit," as well as of the "flesh" 
or "body," from all sin; by which can only be 
meant our complete deliverance from all spirit- 
ual pollution, all inward depravation of the heart, 
as well as that which, expressing itself outwardly 
by the indulgence of the senses, is called "filthi- 
ness of the flesh." 

The attainableness of such a state is \\o\ so 
much a matter of debate among Christians us 
the time when we are authorized to o\|uvt it 
For as it is an axiom of Christian doctriue that 



612 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



— itiout holiness no man can see the Lord ;" and 
u it is equally clear that if we would " be found 
of him in peace," we must be found "without 
spot and blameless;" and that the Church will 
be presented by Christ to the Father " fault- 
it must be concluded — unless, on the 
one hand, we greatly perrert the sense of these 
tres, or, on the other, admit the doctrine of 
purgatory or some intermediate purifying insti- 
t /.:: in — that the entire sanctification of the soul, 
and its complete renewal in holiness, must take 
place in this world- 
While this is generally acknowledged, how- 
ever, among spiritual Christians, it has been 
warmly contended by many that the final stroke 
which destroys our natural corruption is only 
given at death : and that the souL when sepa- 
rated from the body, and not before, is capable 
of that immaculate purity which these pass:._e5. 
doubtless, exhibit to our hope. 

I: this view can be refuted, then it must fol- 
low, unless a purgatory of some description be 
allowed after death, that the entire sanctification 
of believers, at any time previous to their disso- 
lution, and in the full sense of these evangelic 
promises, is attainable. 

To the opinion in question, then, there appear 
to be the following fatal objections : 

1. That we nowhere find the promises of entire 
sanctification restricted to the article of death, 
either expressly, or in fair inference from any 
passage of Holy Scripture. 

2. That we nowhere find the circumstance 
of the soul's union with the body represented 
as a necessary obstacle to its entire sanctification. 

The principal passage which has been urged 
in proof of this from the Xew Testament, is that 
part of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the 
Romans, in which St. Paul, speaking in the first 
person of the bondage of the flesh, has been 
supposed to describe his state, as a believer in 
Christ. But whether he speaks of himself, or 
describes the state of others in a supposed case, 
given for the sake of more vivid representation 
in the first person, which is much more pro- 
bable, he is clearly speaking of a person who 
had once sought justification by the works of 
the law, but who was then convinced, by the 
force of a spiritual apprehension of the extent of 
the requirements of that law, and by constant 
failures in his attempts to keep : . that 

he was in bondage to his corrupt nature, and 
could only be delivered from this thraldom by 
the interposition of another. For, not to urge 
that his strong expressions of being '-carnal," 
"* sold under sin," and doing always u the things 
which he would not," are utterly incon-l 

that moral state of believers in Christ 



[PAST II. 

which he describes in the next chapter; and, 
especially, that he there declare: thai such as 
are in Christ Jesus -walk not after the fl 
but after the Spirit;" the seventh chapter i 
contains decisive evidence against the inference 
which the advocates of the necessary 
ance of sin till death have drawn from it. 
apostle declares the person whose case he de- 
scribes, to be under the law, and not in a state of 
deliverance by Christ; and then he repr- 
him not only as despairing of self-delrrerance, and 
as praying for the interposition of a sufficiently 
powerful deliverer, but as thanking God that the 
very ieliverance for which he groans is appointed 
to be administered to him by Jesus Christ. 
'•Who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death ? I thank God through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." 

This is, also, so fully confirmed by what the 
sfle had said in the preceding chapter, where 
he unquestionably describes the moral state of 
true believers, that nothing is more sure. 
than that so perverted a comment upon the 
seventh chapter as that to which we have ad- 
verted should have been adopted or persevered 
in. "What shall we say then? Shall we con- 
tinue in sin, that grace may abound ? God for- 
bid! How shall we, that are dead to sin, live 
any longer therein ? Know ye not. that so many 
:: he ae ~ ere baptized into Jesus Christ were 
baptized into his death? Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism into death; that 
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
walk in newness of life. For if we have been 
planted together in the likeness of his death, we 
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection : 
knowing this, that ora old slax is crucified 
with him, that the body of sen might be de- 
stroyed, that henceforth we should not serve 
sin; for he that is dead is jbeed from - 
So clearly does the apostle show that he who is 
bottsd to the "body of death," as mentioned 
in the seventh chapter, is not in the state of a 
believer; and that he who has a true faith in 
Christ "is fbeed from ma. 71 

it is s : mewhat singular, that the divir 
the Calvinistic school should be almost uni- 
formly the zealous advocates of the doctrine 
of the continuance of indwelling sin till death; 
but it is but justice : say, that several of 
them have as zealously denied that the aj 
in the seventh chapter of the Romans, de- 
scribes the state of one who is justified by faith 
in Christ, and very properly consider the case 
there spoken of as that of one struggling in 
legal bondage, and brought to that point of 
self-despair, and of conviction of sin and help- 



CH. XXIX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



613 



lessness, which must always precede an entire 
trust in the merits of Christ's death, and the 
power of his salvation. 

3. The doctrine before us is disproved by 
those passages of Scripture which connect our 
entire sane tifi cation with subsequent habits and 
acts, to be exhibited in the conduct of believers 
before death. So in the quotation from Rom. vi., 
just given: "Knowing this, that our old man is 
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be 
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve 
sin." So the exhortation in 2 Cor. vii. 1, also 
given above, refers to the present life, and not 
to the future hour of our dissolution ; and in 1 
Thess. v. 23, the apostle first prays for the entire 
sanctification of the Thessalonians, and then for 
their preservation in that hallowed state, "unto 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

4. It is disproved, also, by all those passages 
which require us to bring forth those graces 
and virtues which are usually called the fruits 
of the Spirit. That these are to be produced 
during our life, and to be displayed in our spirit 
and conduct, cannot be doubted ; and we may 
then ask whether they are required of us in per- 
fection and maturity ? If so, in this degree of 
maturity and perfection, they necessarily sup- 
pose the entire sanctification of the soul from 
the opposite and antagonist evils. Meekness in 
its perfection siipposes the extinction of all sin- 
ful anger : perfect love to God supposes that no 
affection remains contrary to it ; and so of every 
other perfect internal virtue. The inquiry, 
then, is reduced to this, whether these graces, 
in such perfection as to exclude the opposite 
corruptions of the heart, are of possible attain- 
ment. If they are not, then we cannot love 
God with our whole hearts ; then we must be 
sometimes sinfully angry; and how, in that 
case, are we to interpret that perfectness in these 
graces which God hath required of us and pro- 
mised to us in the gospel ? For if the perfection 
meant (and let it be observed that this is a 
scriptural term, and must mean something) be 
so comparative as that we may be sometimes 
sinfully angry, and may sometimes divide our 
hearts between God and the creature, we may 
apply the same comparative sense of the term 
to good words and to good works, as well as to 
good affections. Thus, when the apostle prays 
for the Hebrews, "Now the God of peace that 
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, 
that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the 
blood of the everlasting covenant, make you 
perfect in every good work, to do his will," we 
must understand this perfection of evangelical 
good works so that it shall sometimes give place 
to opposite evil works, just as good affections 



must necessarily sometimes give place to the 
opposite bad affections. This view can scarcely 
be soberly entertained by any enlightened Chris- 
tian ; and it must, therefore, be concluded, that 
the standard of our attainable Christian per- 
fection, as to the affections, is a love of God so 
perfect as to "rule the heart," and exclude all 
rivalry, and a meekness so perfect as to cast 
out all sinful anger, and prevent its return ; 
and that as to good works, the rule is, that we 
shall be so "perfect in every good work," as to 
"do the will of God" habitually, fully, and 
constantly. If we fix the standard lower, we 
let in a license totally inconsistent with that 
Christian purity which is allowed by all to be 
attainable, and we make every man himself his 
own interpreter of that comparative perfection 
which is often contended for as that only which 
is attainable. 

Some, it is true, admit the extent of the 
promises and the requirements of the gospel as 
we have stated them ; but they contend that 
this is the mark at which we are to aim, the 
standard toward which we are to aspire, though 
neither is attainable fully till death. But this 
view cannot be true as applied to sanctification, 
or deliverance from all inward and outward sin. 
That the degree of every virtue implanted by 
grace is not limited, but advances and grows in 
the living Christian throughout life, may be 
granted ; and through eternity also ; but to say 
that these virtues are not attainable, through 
the work of the Spirit, in that degree which shall 
destroy all opposite vice, is to say that God, 
under the gospel, requires us to be what we 
cannot be, either through want of efficacy in 
his grace, or from some defect in its administra- 
tion ; neither of which has any countenance 
from Scripture, nor is at all consistent with 
the terms in which the promises and exhorta- 
tions of the gospel are expressed. It is also 
contradicted by our own consciousness, which 
charges our criminal neglects and failures upon 
ourselves, and not upon the grace of God, as 
though it were insufficient. Either the con- 
sciences of good men have in all ages been delu- 
sive and over-scrupulous, or this doctrine of tho 
necessary, though occasional, dominion of sin 
over us is false. 

5. The doctrine of the necessary indwelling 
of sin in the soul till death involves other anti- 
scriptural consequences. It supposes that the 
scat of sin is in tho flesh, and thus harmonizes 
with the pagan philosophy, which attributed all 
evil to matter. The doctrine of the Bible, on 
the contrary, is, that the seat oi' sin is in the 

soul; and it mak.es it one o\' the proofs of the 
fill and corruption oi' our spiritual nature, that 



614 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



we are in bondage to the appetites and motions 
of the flesh. Nor does the theory which places 
the necessity of sinning in the connection of the 
soul with the body account for the whole moral 
case of man. There are sins, as pride, covet- 
onsness, malice, and others, which are wholly 
spiritual ; and yet no exception is made in this 
doctrine of the necessary continuance of sin till 
death as to them. There is, surely, no need to 
wait for the separation of the soul from the 
body in order to be saved from evils which are 
the sole offspring of the spirit; and yet these 
are made as inevitable as the sins which more 
immediately connect themselves with the excite- 
ments of the animal nature. 

This doctrine supposes, too, that the flesh 
must necessarily not only lust against the spirit, 
but in no small degree, and on many occasions, 
be the conqueror ; whereas, we are commanded 
to "mortify the deeds of the body;" to "cru- 
cify" that is, to put to death, "the flesh;" "to 
put off the old man," which, in its full meaning, 
must import separation from sin in fact, as well 
as the renunciation of it in will ; and " to put 
on the new man." Finally, the apostle ex- 
pressly states, that though the flesh stands vic- 
toriously opposed to legal sanctification, it is not 
insuperable by evangelical holiness. " For what 
the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the like- 
ness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin 
in the flesh ; that the righteousness of the law 
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the 
flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. viii. 3, 4. So 
inconsistent with the declarations and promises 
of the gospel is the notion that, so long as we are 
in the body, " the flesh" must of necessity have 
at least the occasional dominion. 

We conclude, therefore, as to the time of our 
complete sanctification — or, to use the phrase 
of the Apostle Paul, "the destruction of the 
body ,of sin" — that it can neither be referred to 
the hour of death, nor placed subsequently to 
this present life. The attainment of perfect free- 
dom from sin is one to which believers are called 
during the present life ; and is necessary to that 
completeness of "holiness," and of those active 
and passive graces of Christianity, by which they 
are called to glorify God in this world, and to 
edify mankind. 

Not only the time, but the manner also of our 
sanctification has been matter of controversy: 
some contending that all attainable degrees of it 
are acquired by the process of gradual mortifica- 
tion and the acquisition of holy habits ; others 
alleging it to be instantaneous, and the fruit of 
an act of faith in the Divine promises. 

That the regeneration which accompanies jus- 



[part n. 



tification is a large approach to this state of 
perfected holiness; and that all dying to sin, 
and all growth in grace, advances us nearer to 
this point of entire sanctity, is so obvious, that 
on these points there can be no reasonable dis- 
pute. But they are not at all inconsistent with 
a more instantaneous work, when, the depth of 
our natural depravity being more painfully felt, 
we plead in faith the accomplishment of the 
promises of God. The great question to be 
settled is, whether the deliverance sighed after 
be held out to us in these promises as a present 
blessing? And, from what has been already 
said, there appears no ground to doubt this, 
since no small violence would be offered to the 
passages of Scripture already quoted, as well as 
to many others, by the opposite opinion. All 
the promises of God which are not expressly, or 
from their order, referred to future time, are 
objects of present trust; and their fulfilment nou> 
is made conditional only upon our faith. They 
cannot, therefore, be pleaded in our prayers, 
with an entire reliance upon the truth of God, 
in vain. The general promise that we shall 
receive " all things whatsoever we ask in prayer, 
believing," comprehends, of course, "all things" 
suited to our case which God has engaged to 
bestow ; and if the entire renewal of our nature 
be included in the number, without any limita- 
tion of time, except that in which we ask it in 
faith, then to this faith shall the promises of 
entire sanctification be given ; which, in the 
nature of the case, supposes an instantaneous 
work immediately following upon our entire and 
unwavering faith. 

The only plausible objections made to this doc- 
trine may be answered in few words. 

It has been urged that this state of entire 
sanctification supposes future impeccability. Cer- 
tainly not; for if angels and our first parents 
fell when in a state of immaculate sanctity, the 
renovated man cannot be placed, by his entire 
deliverance from inward sin, out of the reach of 
danger. This remark also answers the allega- 
tion that we should thus be removed out of 
the reach of temptation; for the example of 
angels, and of the first man, who fell by tempta- 
tion when in a state of native purity, proves 
that the absence of inward evil is not inconsist- 
ent with a state of probation ; and that this, in 
itself, is no guard against the attempts and soli- 
citations of evil. 

It has been objected, too, that this supposed 
state renders the atonement and intercession of 
Christ superfluous in future. But the very con- 
trary of this is manifest when the case of an 
evangelical renewal of the soul in righteousness 
is understood. This proceeds from the grace of 



CH. XXIX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



615 



God in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, as the 
efficient cause ; it is received by faith as the in- 
strumental cause ; and the state itself into which 
we are raised is maintained, not by inherent 
native power, but by the continual presence and 
sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit himself, 
received and retained in answer to ceaseless 
prayer; which prayer has respect solely to the 
merits of the death and intercession of Christ. 

It has been further alleged, that a person de- 
livered from all inward and outward sin has no 
longer need to use the petition of the Lord's 
prayer — "And forgive us our trespasses;" be- 
cause he has no longer need of pardon. To 
this we reply: 1. That it would be absurd to 
suppose that any person is placed under the ne- 
cessity of "trespassing," in order that a general 
prayer designed for men in a mixed condition 
might retain its aptness to every particular case. 
2. That trespassing of every kind and degree is 
not supposed by this prayer to be continued, in 
order that it might be used always in the same 
import ; or otherwise it might be pleaded against 
the renunciation of any trespass or transgression 
whatever. 3. That this petition is still rele- 
vant to the case of the entirely sanctified and 
the evangelically perfect, since neither the per- 
fection of the first man nor that of angels is in 
question ; that is, a perfection measured by the 
perfect law, which, in its obligations, contem- 
plates all creatures as having sustained no injury 
by moral lapse, and admits, therefore, of no 
excuse from infirmities and mistakes of judg- 
ment; nor of any degree of obedience below 
that which beings created naturally perfect were 
capable of rendering. There may, however, be 
an entire sanctification of a being rendered 
naturally weak and imperfect, and so liable to 
mistake and infirmity, as well as to defect in the 
degree of that absolute obedience and service 
which the law of God, never bent or lowered to 
human weakness, demands from all. These de- 
fects, and mistakes, and infirmities, may be quite 
consistent with the entire sanctification of the 
soul and the moral maturity of a being still 
naturally infirm and imperfect. Still further, 
if this were not a sufficient answer, it may be 
remarked, that we are not the ultimate judges of 
our own case as to our "trespasses," or our ex- 
emption from them ; and we are not, therefore, 
to put ourselves into the place of God, "who is 
greater than our heart." So, although St. 
Paul says, "I know nothing by myself" — that is, 
I am conscious of no offence — he adds, " yet am I 
not hereby justified ; but he that judgeth me is 
the Lord :" to whom, therefore, the appeal is 
every moment to be made through Christ the 
Mediator, and who, by tho renewod testimony 



of his Spirit, assures every true believer of his 
acceptance in his sight. 

Another benefit which accrues to all true be- 
lievers is the bight to pray, with the special 
assurance that they shall be heard in all things 
which are according to the will of God. "And 
this is the confidence that we have in him, 
that, if we ask any thing according to his will, 
he heareth us." It is under this gracious insti- 
tution that all good men are constituted inter- 
cessors for others, even for the whole world ; and 
that God is pleased to order many of his dispen- 
sations, both as to individuals and to nations, in 
reference to "his elect who cry day and night 
unto him." 

With respect to every real member of the 
body or Church of Christ, the providence of 
God is special: in other words, they are indi- 
vidually considered in the administration of the 
affairs of this life by the sovereign Ruler, and 
their measure of good and of evil is appointed 
with constant reference to their advantage, either 
in this life or in eternity. " The hairs of their 
head" are, therefore, said to be "numbered," 
and "all things" are declared "to work together 
for their good." 

To them also victory over death is awarded. 
They are freed from its fear in respect of con- 
sequences in another state; for the apprehen- 
sion of future punishment is removed by the 
remission of their sins, and the attestation of 
this to their minds by the Holy Spirit ; while a 
patient resignation to the will of God, as to the 
measure of their bodily sufferings, and the 
strong hopes and joyful anticipations of a better 
life, cancel and subdue that horror of pain and 
dissolution which is natural to man. " Foras- 
much, then, as the children are partakers of 
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part 
of the same; that through death he might de- 
stroy him that had the power of death, that is, 
the devil ; and deliver them who, through fear 
of death, were all their lifetime subject to bond- 
age." Heb. ii. 14, 15. 

The immediate reception of the soul into 
a state of blessedness after death, is also an- 
other of the glorious promises of the new cove- 
nant to all them that endure to the end, and 
"die in the Lord." 

This is so explicitly taught in the New Testa- 
ment, that, but for the admission of a philoso- 
phical error, it would, probably, have never been 
doubted by any persons professing to receive 
that book as of Divine authority. Till re- 
cent times, the belief in the materiality of tho 
human soul was chiefly confined to those who 
entirely rejected tho Christian revelation; but 
when the Socinians adopted this notion, without 



616 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART II. 



wholly rejecting the Scriptures, it was promptly 
perceived that the doctrine of an intermediate 
state, and the materiality of the soul, could not 
be maintained together; 1 and the most violent 
and disgraceful criticisms and evasions have, 
therefore, by this class of interpreters been re- 
sorted to, in order to save a notion as unphiloso- 
phical as it is contrary to the word of God. 
Nothing can be more satisfactory than the obser- 
vations of Dr. Campbell on this subject: 

" Many expressions of Scripture, in the natural 
and obvious sense, imply that an intermediate 
and separate state of the soul is actually to suc- 
ceed death. Such are the words of the Lord to 
the penitent thief upon the cross, Luke xxiii. 
43 ; Stephen's dying petition, Acts vii. 59 ; the 
comparisons which the Apostle Paul makes in 
different places, (2 Cor. v. 6, etc.; Phil. i. 21-24,) 
between the enjoyment which true Christians can 
attain by their continuance in this world, and 
that which they enter on at their departure out 
of it, and several other passages. Let the words 
referred to be read by any judicious person, either 
in the original or in the common translation, 
which is sufficiently exact for this purpose, and 
let him, setting aside all theory or system, say, 
candidly, whether they would not be understood, 
by the gross of mankind, as presupposing that 
the soul may and will exist separately from the 
body, and be susceptible of happiness or misery 
in that state. If any thing could add to the na- 
tive evidence of the expressions, it would be the 
unnatural meanings that are put upon them, in 
order to disguise that evidence. "What shall we 
say of the metaphysical distinction introduced 
for this purpose between absolute and relative 
time ? The Apostle Paul, they are sensible, 
speaks of the saints as admitted to enjoyment in 
the presence of God immediately after death. 
Now, to palliate the direct contradiction there is 
in this to their doctrine, that the vital principle, 
which is all they mean by the soul, remains ex- 
tinguished between death and the resurrection, 
they remind us of the difference there is be- 
tween absolute or real and relative or apparent 
time. They admit that if the apostle be under- 
stood as speaking of real time, what is said flatly 
contradicts their system ; but, say they, his words 
must be interpreted as spoken only of apparent 
time. He talks, indeed, of entering on a state 
of enjoyment immediately after death, though 

1 A few divines, and but few, have also been found, who, 
still admitting the essential distinction between body and 
spirit, have thought that their separation by death incapa- 
citated the soul for the exercise of its powers. This 
suspension they call "the sleep of the soul." With the 
Materialist, death causes the entire annihilation, for the 
time, of the thinking property of matter. Both opinions 
are, however, refuted by the same scriptural arguments. 



there may be many thousands of years between 
the one and the other ; for he means only that 
when that state shall commence, however dis- 
tant, in reality, the time may be, the person 
entering upon it will not be sensible of that dis- 
tance, and, consequently, there will be to him an 
apparent coincidence with the moment of his 
death. But does the apostle anywhere give a 
hint that this is his meaning ? or is it what any 
man would naturally discover from his words ? 
That it is exceedingly remote from the common 
use of language, I believe hardly any of those who 
favor this scheme will be partial enough to deny. 
Did the sacred penmen then mean to put a cheat 
upon the world, and, by the help of an equivocal 
expression, to flatter men with the hope of enter- 
ing, the instant they expire, on a state of felicity, 
when, in fact, they knew that it would be many 
ages before it would take place ? But were the hy- 
pothesis about the extinction of the mind between 
death and the resurrection well founded, the ap- 
parent coincidence they speak of is not so clear as 
they seem to think it. For my part, I cannot regard 
it as an axiom, and I never heard of any who at- 
tempted to demonstrate it. To me it appears 
merely a corollary from Mr. Locke's doctrine, 
which derives our conceptions of time from the 
succession of our ideas ; which, whether true or 
false, is a doctrine to be found only among certain 
philosophers, and which, we may reasonably be- 
lieve, never came into the heads of those to whom 
the gospel, in the apostolic age, was announced. 
" I remark that even the curious equivocation 
(or, perhaps, more properly, mental reservation) 
that has been devised for them, will not, in every 
case, save the credit of apostolical veracity. The 
words of Paul to the Corinthians are, Knowing 
that while we are at home in the body, we are absent 
from the Lord: again, We are willing rather to be 
absent from the body and present with the Lord. 
Could such expressions have been used by him, 
if he had held it impossible to be with the Lord, 
or, indeed, anywhere, without the body; and 
that, whatever the change was which was made 
by death, he could not be in the presence of the 
Lord till he returned to the body? Absence 
from the body, and presence with the Lord, were 
never, therefore, more unfortunately combined 
than in this illustration. Things are combined 
here as coincident, which, on the hypothesis of 
those gentlemen, are incompatible. If recourse 
be had to the original, the expressions in Greek 
are, if possible, still stronger. They are, ol kvdn- 
fiovvrec kv tcj aujuari, those who dwell in the body, 
who are kudn/novvreg dirb tov Kvplov, at a distance 
from the Lord. As, on the contrary, they are ol 
kndn/LiovvTec ek tov aufiaroc, those u-ho have travelled 
out of the body, who are ol ivdnpovvrec Trpoc tov 



CH. XXIX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



617 



Kvpiov, those who reside or are present with the 
Lord. In the passage to the Philippians, also, the 
commencement of his presence with the Lord is 
represented as coincident, not with his return to 
the body, but with his leaving it — with the disso- 
lution, not with the restoration of the union. 

"From the tenor of the New Testament, the 
sacred writers appear to proceed on the supposi- 
tion that the soul and the body are naturally dis- 
tinct and separable, and that the soul is suscep- 
tible of pain or pleasure in a state of separation. 
It were endless to enumerate all the places which 
evince this. The story of the rich man and Laz- 
arus, Luke xvi. 22, 23 ; the last words of our 
Lord upon the cross, Luke xxiii. 46, and of 
Stephen, when dying ; Paul's doubts, whether 
he was in the body or out of the body, when he 
was translated to the third heaven and paradise, 
2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4 ; our Lord's words to Thomas 
to satisfy him. that he was not a spirit, Luke 
xxiv. 39 ; and, to conclude, the express men- 
tion of the denial of spirits as one of the errors 
of the Sadducees, Acts xxiii. 8, For the Saddu- 
cees say there is no resurrection, neither angel nor 
spirit, (inde dyyelov [iTjre nvevfia — all these are 
irrefragable evidences of the general opinion on 
this subject of both Jews and Christians. By 
spirit, as distinguished from angel, is evidently 
meant the departed spirit of a human being ; for 
that man is here, before his natural death, pos- 
sessed of a vital and intelligent principle, which 
is commonly called his soul or spirit, it was never 
pretended that they denied." — (Diss, vi., part 2.) 

In this intermediate, but felicitous and glori- 
ous state, the disembodied spirits of the right- 
eous will remain in joy and felicity with Christ, 
until the general judgment; when another dis- 
play of the gracious effects of our redemption, 
by Christ, will appear in the glorious resurrec- 
tion of their bodies to an immortal life: thus 
distinguishing them from the wicked, whose 
resurrection will be to "shame and everlasting 
contempt," or to what may be emphatically 
termed an immortal death. 

On this subject no point of discussion, of any 
importance, arises among those who admit the 
truth of Scripture, except as to the way in which 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to 
be understood : whether a resurrection of the 
substance of the body be meant, or of some 
minute and indestructible part of it. The latter 
theory has been adopted for the sake of avoiding 
certain supposed difficulties. It cannot, however, 
fail to strike every impartial reader of the New 
Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection 
is there taught without any nice distinctions. It 
*.s always exhibited as a miraculous work ; and 
represents the same body which is laid in the 



grave as the subject of this change from death to 
life, by the power of Christ. Thus, our Lord 
was raised in the same body in which he died, 
and his resurrection is constantly held forth as 
the model of ours ; and the Apostle Paul ex- 
pressly says: "Who shall change our vile body, 
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious 
body." The only passage of Scripture which 
appears to favor the notion of the rising of the 
immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 
1 Cor. xv. 35, etc.: "But some man will say, 
How are the dead raised up, and with what body 
do they come ? Thou fool, that which thou sow- 
est is not quickened except it die ; and that which 
thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall 
be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of 
some other grain," etc. If, however, it had been 
the intention of the apostle, holding this view of 
the case, to meet objections to the doctrine of 
the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties 
of conceiving how the same body, in the popular 
sense, could be raised up in substance, we might 
have expected him to correct this misapprehen- 
sion, by declaring that this was not the Christian 
doctrine ; but that some small parts of the body 
only, bearing as little proportion to the whole as 
the germ of a seed to the plant, would be pre- 
served, and be unfolded into the perfected body 
at the resurrection. Instead of this, he goes on 
immediately to remind the objector of the differ- 
ences which exist between material bodies as 
they now exist : between the plant and the bare 
or naked grain; between one plant and another ; 
between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes, 
and of birds ; between celestial and terrestrial 
bodies; and between the lesser and greater 
celestial luminaries themselves. Still further, he 
proceeds to state the difference, not between the 
germ of the body to be raised, and the body given 
at the resurrection, but between the body itself, 
understood popularly, which dies, and the body 
which shall be raised : "It is sown in corruption, 
it is raised in incorruption;" which would not be 
true of the supposed incorruptible and imperish- 
able germ of this hypothesis ; and can only be 
affirmed of the body itself, considered in sub- 
stance, and in its present state, corruptible. Fur- 
ther, the question put by the objector, "How 
are the dead raised up?" does not refer to the 
modus agendi of the resurrection, or the process 
or manner in which the thing is to be effected, 
as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear 
to assume. This is manifest from the answer oi' 
the apostle, who goes on immediately to state. 
not in what manner the resurrection is to be 
effected, but what shall be the slate or condition 
of the resurrection body : whioh is no answer at 
all to the question, if it l>e taken in that sense. 



618 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



The first of the two questions in the passage 
referred to relates to the possibility of the resur- 
rection : "How are the dead raised up?" The 
second to the kind of body which they are to take, 
supposing the fact to be allowed. Both questions, 
however, imply a denial of the fact, or, at least, 
express a strong doubt concerning it. It is thus 
that 7r5£V "how "in. the first question, is taken 
in many passages where it is connected with a 
verb ; 1 and the second question only expresses 
the general negation or doubt more particularly, 
by implying that the objector could not conceive 
of any kind of body being restored to man, 
which would not be an evil and imperfection 
to him. For the very reason why some of the 
Christians of that age denied, or strongly doubted, 
the resurrection of the body — explaining it figu- j 
ratively, and saying that it was past already — i 

l Gen. xxxix. 9, Tlug TTOlf/OG), How shall I— how is it 
possible, that I should do this great wickedness ? " How, 
then, can I," say our translators. Exod. vi. 12, " Behold, | 
the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me ; how, 
then, shall Pharaoh hear me?"— ttwc ehaKOvaerai fiov j 
Qapaa); how is it likely, or possible, that Pharaoh should 
hear me ? See also verse 30. Judges xvi. 15, "And she 
said unto him, IIcDc heyeig, How canst thou say I love 
thee?" 2 Sam. xi. 11, may also he considered in the LXX. 
2 Kings x. 4, " But they were exceedingly afraid, and said, 
Behold, two kings stood not before him: K-dl 7T(3c, how 
then shall we stand ?" — how is it possible that we should 
stand ? Job ix. 2, TI£>c yap larat dinaioq /3poroc— For 
how shall mortal man be just with, or in the presence of 
God? — how is it possible ? See what follows. Psalm lxxii. 
(lxxiii.) 11; TLuc eyvco 6 Qeog ; "How doth God know?" 
— how is it possible that he should know ? See the connec- 
tion. Jef . viii. 8, IlaJc epelre, « How do ye say,"— how is 
that ye say, how can ye say, — We are wise ? Ibid, xxix. 7, 
(xlvii. 7,) IIwc rjcvxdou ; "How can it"— the sword of 
the Lokd — " be quiet ?" Ezek. xxxiii. 10, " If our trangres- 
sions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, 
7T6)f fyoo/Lteda, how should we then live ?" Matt. vii. 4, " Or 
how, Kibe,, wilt thou say to thy brother ?" where Rosenm. 
observes that K&Q has the force of negation. Ibid, xii. 
26, " If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; 
7twc ovv GTadr/aerai ; how shall then"— how can then— 
"his kingdom stand?" See also Luke xi. 18. Matt, xxiii. 
33, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, 7TWC (bvyr/Te, 
how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" " qui fieri potest ?" 
Rosenm. Mark iv. 40, ITwc ovk e^ere ttlgtlv ; » How is 
it that ye have no faith?" Luke i. 34 may also be adduced. 
John v. 47, " If ye believe not his writings, 7rwc — TTiarev- 
OETE — how shall ye" — how can ye — " believe my words ?" 
Rom. iii. 6, "God forbid; for then, 7rwf icpivel, how shall 
God judge the world?" — how is it possible? See the preced- | 
ing verse. Ibid, viii. 32, LTwc — X a P' LGETaL: > "How shall 
he not " — how is it possible but that he should — " with him 
also freely give us all things ?" Ibid, x. 14, Tiuc — hnLKalea- 
ovrai, " How then shall they " — how is it possible that they ! 
should—" call on him in whom they have not believed ?" ) 
etc. 1 Tim. iii. 5, "For if a man know not how to rule his j 
own house, ttwc, how shall he take care of the Church of \ 
God ?" Heb. ii. 3, " How shall we escape" — how is it possi- 
ble that we should escape — " if we neglect so great salva- 
tion ?" 1 John iii. 17, Hwc, " How dwelleth the love of 
God in him ?" — how can it dwell ? Comp. chap. iv. 20, where 
dvvarat is added. 



[part II. 

was, that they were influenced to this by the no- 
tion of their philosophical schools, that the body 
was the prison of the soul, and that the greatest 
deliverance men could experience was to be 
eternally freed from their connection with mat- 
ter. Hence the early philo'sophizing sects in the 
Christian Church, the Gnostics, Marcionites, etc., 
denied the resurrection, on the same ground as 
the philosophers, and thought it opposed to that 
perfection which they hoped to enjoy in another 
world. Such persons appear to have been in the 
Church of Corinth as early as the time of St. 
Paul ; for that in this chapter he answers the 
objections, not of pagans, but of professing 
Christians, appears from verse 12: "How say 
some among you, that there is no resurrection of 
the dead?" The objection, therefore, in the 
minds of these persons to the doctrine of the 
resurrection, did not lie against the doctrine of 
the raising up of the substance of the same body ; 
so that, provided this notion could be dispensed 
with, they were prepared to admit that a new 
material body might spring from its germ, as a 
plant from seed. They stumbled at the doctrine 
in every form, because it involved the circum- 
stance of the reunion of the spirit with matter, 
which they thought an evil. When, therefore, 
the objector asks, "How are the dead raised up ?" 2 
he is to be understood, not as inquiring as to the 
process, but as to the possibility. The doubt 
may, indeed, be taken as an implied negation of 
the possibility of the resurrection with reference 
to God; and then the apostle, by referring to 
the springing up of the grain of corn, when dis- 
solved and putrefied, may be understood to show 
that the event was not inconceivable, by referring 
to God's omnipotence, as shown in his daily 
providence, which, a priori, would appear as 
marvellous and incredible. But it is much more 
probable that the impossibility implied in this 
question refers, not to the power of God, which 
every Christian in the Church of Corinth must 
be supposed to have been taught to conceive of 
as almighty, and, therefore, adequate to the pro- 
duction of this effect; but as relating to the 
contrariety which was assumed to exist between 
the doctrine of the reunion of the soul with the 
body, and those hopes of a higher condition in a 
future life, which both reason and revelation 
taught them to form. The second question, 
"With what body do they come ?" like the former, 
is a question not of inquiry, but of denial, or, at 
least, of strong doubt, importing, that no idea 
could be entertained by the objector of any 
material body being made the residence of a 



2 The present indicative verb is here used, as it is gene- 
rally throughout this chapter, for the future. 



CH. XXIX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



619 



disenthralled spirit, which could comport with 
those notions of deliverance from the bondage of 
corruption by death, which the philosophy of 
the age had taught, and which Christianity itself 
did not discountenance. The questions, though 
different, come, therefore, nearly to the same 
import ; and this explains why the apostle chiefly 
dwells upon the answer to the latter only, by 
which, in fact, he replies to both. The grain 
cast into the earth even dies and is corrupted, 
and that which is sown is not "the body which 
shall be," in form and quality, but " naked 
grain;" yet into the plant, in its perfect form, 
is the same matter transformed. So the flesh of 
beasts, birds, fishes, and man, is the same mat- 
ter, though exhibiting different qualities. So 
also bodies celestial are of the same matter as 
"bodies terrestrial;" and the more splendid 
luminaries of the heavens are, in substance, the 
same as those of inferior glory. It is thus that 
the apostle reaches his conclusion, and shows 
that the doctrine of our reunion with the body 
implies in it no imperfection — nothing contrary 
to the hopes of liberation "from the burden of 
this flesh;" because of the high and glorified 
qualities which God is able to give to matter ; of 
which the superior purity, splendor, and energy 
of some material things in this world, in com- 
parison of others, is a visible demonstration. 
For after he has given these instances, he adds, 
" So is the resurrection of the dead : it is sown 
in corruption, it is raised in incorruption ; it is 
Sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory ; it is sown 
in weakness, it is raised in power ; it is sown a 
natural (an animal) body, it is raised a spiritual 
body," so called, "as being accommodated to a 
spirit, and far excelling all that is required for 
the transaction of earthly and terrene affairs;" 
(Rosenmuller;) and so intent is the apostle on 
dissipating all those gross representations of the 
resurrection of the body which the objectors had 
assumed as the ground of their opposition, and 
which they had, probably, in their disputations, 
placed under the strongest views, that he guards 
the true Christian doctrine, on this point, in the 
most explicit manner : " Now this I say, brethren, 
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom 
of God, neither doth corruption inherit incor- 
ruption;" and, therefore, let no man hencefor- 
ward affirm, or assume it in his argument, that 
We teach any such doctrine. This, also, he 
strengthens, by showing, that as to the saints 
who are alive at the second coming of Christ, 
they also shall be in like manner "changed," 
and that "this corruptible," as to them also, 
u shall put on incorruption." 

Thus, in the argument, the apostle confines 
himself wholly to the possibility of the resur- 



rection of the body in a refined and glorified 
state; but omits all reference to the mode in 
which the thing will be effected, as being out Of 
the line of the objector's questions, and in itself 
above human thought, and wholly miraculous. 
It is, however, clear, that when he speaks of the 
body as the subject of this wondrous "change," 
he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in 
substance, whatever changes in its qualities or 
figure may be impressed upon it. Great general 
changes it will experience, as from corruption 
to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; 
great changes of a particular kind will also take 
place, as its being freed from deformities and de- 
fects, and the accidental varieties produced by 
climate, aliments, labor, and hereditary diseases. 
It is also laid down by our Lord, that "in the 
resurrection they shall neither marry nor be 
given in marriage, but be like to the angels of 
God;" and this also implies a certain change of 
structure ; and we may gather from the decla- 
ration of the apostle, that though "the stomach" 
is now adapted "to meats, and meats to the 
stomach, God will destroy both it and them," 
that the animal appetite for food will be removed, 
and the organ now adapted to that appetite have 
no place in the renewed frame. But great as 
these changes are, the human form will be re- 
tained in its perfection, after the model of our 
Lord's "glorious body," and the substance of the 
matter of which it is composed will not thereby 
be affected. That the same body which was laid 
in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest 
doctrine of the Scriptures. 

The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that 
of an original and unchangeable stamen, out of 
which a new and glorious body, at the resurrec- 
tion, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed 
from the speculations of some of the Jewish rab- 
bins, who speak of some such supposed part in 
the human frame, under the name luz, to which 
they ascribe marvellous properties, and from 
which the body was to arise. No allusion is, 
however, made to any such opinion by the early 
fathers, in their defences of the doctrine of the 
resurrection from the dead. On the contrary, 
they argue in such a way as to prove the possi- 
bility of the reunion of the scattered parts of the 
body ; which sufficiently shows that the germ the- 
ory had not been resorted to, by Christian divines 
at least, in order to harmonize the doctrine of the 
resurrection with philosophy. So Justin Martyr, 
in a fragment of his concerning the resurrection, 
expressly answers the objection, that it is im- 
possible that the flesh, after a corruption and per- 
fect dissolution of all its parts, should be united 
together again; and oontends, "that if the body 
be not raised complete, With all its integral parts. 



620 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



it would argue a want of power in God ;" and 
although some of the Jews adopted the notion of 
the germinating or springing up of the body from 
some one indestructible part, yet the most ortho- 
dox of their rabbins contended for the resurrec- 
tion of the same body. So Maimonides says: 
"Men, in the same manner as they before lived, 
with the same body, shall be restored to life by 
God, and sent into this life with the same iden- 
tity ;" and "that nothing can properly be called 
a resurrection of the dead, but the return of the 
very same soul into the very same body from 
which it was separated." — Rambam apud Pocock- 
ium in Notts Miscellan. Port. Mos., p. 125. 

This theory, under its various forms, and whe- 
ther adopted by Jews or Christians, was designed, 
doubtless, to render the doctrine of a resurrec- 
tion from the dead less difficult to conceive, and 
more acceptable to philosophic minds ; but, like 
most other attempts of the same kind to bring 
down the supernatural doctrines of revelation to 
the level of our conceptions, it escapes none of 
the original difficulties, and involves itself in 
others far more perplexing. 

For if by this hypothesis it was designed to 
remove the difficulty of conceiving how the scat- 
tered parts of one body could be preserved from 
becoming integral parts of other bodies, it sup- 
poses that the constant care of Providence is ex- 
erted to maintain the incorruptibility of those 
individual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent 
their assimilation with each other. Now, if they 
have this by original quality, then the same qual- 
ity may just as easily be supposed to appertain 
to every particle which composes a human body; 
so that, though it be used for food, it shall not be 
capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, 
with another human body. But if these germs, 
or stamina, have not this quality by their original 
nature, they can only be prevented from assimi- 
lating with each other by that operation of God 
which is present to all his works, and which must 
always be directed to secure the execution of his 
own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, 
then, if the resort must at last be to the super- 
intendence of a Being of infinite power and wis- 
dom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing 
that his care to secure this object shall extend to 
a million than to a thousand particles of matter. 
This isj in fact, the true and rational answer to 
the objection that the same piece of matter may 
happen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in 
the instances of men feeding upon animals which 
have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon one 
another. The question here is one which simply 
respects the frustrating a final purpose of the 
Almighty by an operation of nature. To suppose 
that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; 



[PART II. 



to suppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose 
him indifferent to his own designs ; and to as- 
sume that he employs care to prevent it, is to 
assume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, 
as many instances of control which are always 
occurring ; as, for instance, the regulation of the 
proportion of the sexes in human births, which 
cannot be attributed to chance, but must either 
be referred to superintendence, or to some origi- 
nal law. 

Thus these theories afford no relief to the only 
real difficulty involved in the doctrine, but leave 
the whole case still to be resolved into the al- 
mighty power of God. But they involve them- 
selves in the fatal objection, that they are plainly 
in opposition to the doctrine of the Scriptures. 
For, 

1. There is no resurrection of the body on this 
hypothesis, because the germ or stamina can in 
no good sense be called "the body.'''' If a finger, 
or even a limb, is not the body, much less can 
these minuter parts be entitled to this appella- 
tion. 

2. There is, on these theories, no resurrection 
at all. For if the preserved part be a germ, and 
the analogy of germination be adopted, then we 
have no longer a resurrection from death, but a 
veyetation from a suspended principle of secret 
life. If the stamina of Leibnitz be contended for, 
then the body, into which the soul enters at the 
resurrection, with the exception of these minute 
stamina, is provided for it by the addition and 
aggregation of new matter, and we have a crea- 
tion, not a resurrection. 

3. If bodies in either of these modes are to be 
framed for the soul, by the addition of a large 
mass of new matter, the resurrection is made 
substantially the same with the pagan notion of 
the metempsychosis ; and if St. Paul, at Athens, 
preached, not "Jesus and the resurrection," but 
Jesus and a transmigration into a new body, it 
will be- difficult to account for his hearers scoffing 
at a doctrine which had received the sanction of 
several of their own philosophic authorities. 

Another objection to the resurrection of the 
body has been drawn from the changes of its sub- 
stance during life. The answer to this is, that 
allowing a frequent and total change of the sub- 
stance of the body (which, however, is but a 
hypothesis) to take place, it affects not the doc- 
trine of Scripture, which is, that the body which 
is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then 
we are told, that if our bodies have in fact under- 
gone successive changes during life, the bodies 
in which we have sinned or performed rewardable 
actions may not be, in many instances, the same 
bodies as those which will be actually rewarded 
or punished. We answer, that rewards and pun- 



CH. XXIX.] 



DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



621 



ishments have their relation to the body, not so 
much as it is the subject but the instrument of re- 
ward and punishment. It is the soul only which 
perceives pain or pleasure, which suffers or en- 
joys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable sub- 
ject. Were we, therefore, to admit such corpo- 
real mutations as are assumed in this objection, 
they affect not the case of our accountability. 
The personal identity or sameness of a rational 
being, as Mr. Locke has observed, consists in 
self-consciousness: "By this every one is to 



himself what he calls self, without considering 
whether that self be continued in the same or 
divers substances. It was by the same self which 
reflects on an action done many years ago, that 
the action was performed." If there were indeed 
any weight in this objection, it would affect the 
proceedings of human criminal courts in all cases 
of offences committed at some distance of time ; 
but it contradicts the common sense, because it 
contradicts the common consciousness and expe- 
rience of mankind. 



622 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PAItT III. 



PART THIRD. 

THE MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CHAPTER I. 



MORAL LAW. 



Of the law of God, as the subject of a Divine 
and adequately authenticated revelation, some 
observations were made in the first part of this 
work. That such a law exists, so communicated 
to mankind, and contained in the Holy Scrip- 
tures ; that we are under obligation to obey it as 
the declared will of our Creator and Lord ; that 
this obligation is grounded upon our natural re- 
lation to him as creatures made by his power, 
and dependent upon his bounty, are points which 
need not, therefore, be again adverted to, nor is it 
necessary to dwell upon the circumstances and 
degrees of its manifestation to men, under those 
former dispensations of the true religion which 
preceded Christianity. We have exhibited the 
leading doctrines of the Scriptures, as they are 
found in that perfected system of revealed re- 
ligion which we owe to our Saviour, and to his 
apostles, who wrote under the inspiration of that 
Holy Spirit whom he sent forth "to guide them 
into all truth ;" and we shall now find in the dis- 
courses of our Lord, and in the apostolical 
writings, a system of moral principles, virtues, 
and duties, equalling in fulness and perfection 
that great body of doctrinal truth which is 
contained in the New Testament, and deriving 
from it its vital influence and efficacy. 

It is, however, to be noticed, that the morals 
of the New Testament are not proposed to us in 
the form of a regular code. Even in the books 
of Moses, which have the legislative form to a 
great extent, all the principles and duties which 
constituted the full character of "godliness," 
under that dispensation, are not made the sub- 
jects of formal injunction by particular precepts. 
They are partly infolded in general principles, or 
often take the form of injunction in an appa- 
rently incidental manner, or are matters of obvi- 
ous inference. A preceding code of traditionary 



moral law is also all along supposed in the writ- 
ings of Moses and the prophets, as well as a 
consuetudinary ritual and a doctrinal theology, 
both transmitted from the patriarchs. This, too, 
is eminently the case with Christianity. It sup- 
poses that all who believed in Christ admitted 
the Divine authority of the Old Testament ; and 
it assumes the perpetual authority of its morals, 
as well as the truth of its fundamental theology. 
The constant allusions in the New Testament to 
the moral rules of the Jews and patriarchs, 
either expressly as precepts, or as the data of 
argument, sufficiently guard us against the notion, 
that what has not in so many words been reen- 
acted by Christ and his apostles, is of no autho- 
rity among Christians. In a great number of 
instances, however, the form is directly pre- 
ceptive, so as to have all the explicitness and 
force of a regular code of law ; and is, as much 
as a regular code could be, a declaration of the 
sovereign will of Christ, enforced by the sanc- 
tions of eternal life and death. 

This, however, is a point on which a few con- 
firmatory observations may be usefully adduced. 
No part of the preceding dispensation, desig- 
nated generally by the appellation of "the 
law," is repealed in the New Testament, but 
what is obviously ceremonial, typical, and in- 
capable of coexisting with Christianity. Our 
Lord, in his discourse with the Samaritan woman, 
declares that the hour of the abolition of the 
temple-worship was come ; the Apostle Paul, in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, teaches us that the 
Levitical services were but shadows, the substance 
and end of which is Christ ; and the ancient visi- 
ble Church, as constituted upon the ground of 
natural descent from Abraham, was abolished by 
the establishment of a spiritual body of believers 
to take its place. 

No precepts of a purely political nature, that 
is, which respect the civil subjection of the Jews 
to their theocracy, are, therefore, of any force to 
us as laws, although they may have, in many 



CH. I.] 

cases, the greatest authority as principles. No 
ceremonial precepts can be binding, since they 
were restrained to a period terminating with the 
death and resurrection of Christ ; nor are even 
the patriarchal rites of circumcision and the 
passover obligatory upon Christians, since we 
have sufficient evidence that they were of an 
adumbrative character, and were laid aside by 
the first inspired teachers of Christianity. 

With the moral precepts which abound in the 
Old Testament, the case is very different, as suf- 
ficiently appears from the different and even 
contrary manner in which they are always spoken 
of by Christ and his apostles. When our Lord, 
in his sermon on the mount, says, " Think not 
that I am come to destroy the law or the pro- 
phets : I am not come to destroy the law, but to 
fulfil;" that is, to confirm or establish it, — the 
entire scope of his discourse shows that he is 
speaking exclusively of the moral precepts of 
the law, eminently so called, and of the moral 
injunctions of the prophets founded upon them, 
and to which he thus gives an equal authority. 
And in so solemn a manner does he enforce this, 
that he adds, doubtless as foreseeing that at- 
tempts would be made by deceiving or deceived 
men, professing his religion, to lessen the autho- 
rity of the moral law: "Whosoever, therefore, 
shall break one of these least commandments, 
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the 
least in the kingdom of heaven:" that is, as St. 
Chrysostom interprets, "He shall be the farthest 
from attaining heaven and happiness, which im- 
ports that he shall not attain it at all." 

In like manner, St. Paul, after having strenu- 
ously maintained the doctrine of justification by 
faith alone, anticipates an objection by asking : 
■" Do we then make void the law through faith ?" 
and subjoins : "God forbid : yea, we establish the 
law:" meaning by "the law," as the context and 
his argument show, the moral and not the cere- 
monial law. 

After such declarations, it is worse than trifling 
for any to contend that, in order to establish the 
authority of the moral law of the Jews over 
Christians, it ought to have been formally re- 
enacted. To this we may, however, further reply, 
not only that many important moral principles 
and rules found in the Old Testament were never 
formally enacted among the Jews, were tradi- 
tional from an earlier age, and received at differ- 
ent times the more indirect authority of inspired 
recognition ; but, to put the matter in a stronger 
light, that all the leading moral precepts of the 
Jewish Scriptures are, in point of fact, proposed 
in a manner which has the full force of formal re- 
enactment, as the laws of the Christian Church. 
This argument, from the want of formal reenact- 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



623 



ment, has therefore no weight. The summary 
of the law and the prophets, which is to love God 
with all our hearts, and to serve him with all our 
strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, 
is unquestionably enjoined and even reenacted 
by the Christian Lawgiver. When our Lord is 
explicitly asked by " one who came unto him, 
and said, Good Master, what good thing shall I 
do, that I may have eternal life ?" the answer 
given shows that the moral law contained in the 
decalogue is so in force under the Christian dis- 
pensation, that obedience to it is necessary to 
final salvation : "If thou wilt enter into life, keep 
the commandments." And that nothing cere- 
monial is intended by this term is manifest from 
what follows : " He saith unto him, Which ? Jesus 
said, Thou shalt do no murder. Thou shalt not 
commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal," etc. 
Matt. xix. 17-19. Here, also, we have all the 
force of a formal reenactment of the decalogue — 
a part of it being evidently put for the whole. 
Nor were it difficult to produce passages from the 
discourses of Christ and the writings of the 
apostles, which enjoin all the precepts of this 
law taken separately, by their authority, as in- 
dispensable parts of Christian duty, and that, 
too, under their original sanctions of life and 
death : so that the two circumstances which form 
the true character of a law in its highest sense — 
Divine authority and penal sanctions — are 
found as truly in the New Testament as in the 
Old. It will not, for instance, be contended that 
the New Testament does not enjoin the acknow- 
ledgment and worship of one God alone ; nor 
that it does not prohibit idolatry ; nor that it does 
not level its maledictions against false and pro- 
fane swearing ; nor that the Apostle Paul does 
not use the very words of the fifth command- 
ment preceptively when he says, (Eph. vi. 2,) 
"Honor thy father and mother, which is the first 
commandment with promise;" nor that murder, 
adultery, theft, false-witness, and covetousness, 
are not all prohibited, under pain of exclusion 
from the kingdom of God. Thus, then, we have 
the whole decalogue brought into the Christian 
code of morals by a distinct injunction of its 
separate precepts, and by their recognition as 
of permanent and unchangeable obligation ; the 
fourth commandment, respecting the Sabbath 
only, being so far excepted, that its injunction is 
not so expressly marked. This, however, is no 
exception in fact; for beside that its original 
place in the two tables sufficiently distinguishes 
it from all positive, ceremonial, and typical pre- 
cepts, and gives it a moral character in respect 
of its ends, which are, first, mercy to servants and 
cattle, and second, the worship of Almighty Clod, 
undisturbed by worldly interruptions and cares. 



624 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



it is necessarily included in that "law" which 
our Lord declares he came not to destroy or ab- 
rogate ; in that "law" which St. Paul declares 
to be "established by faith;" and among those 
"commandments" which our Lord declares must 
be "kept," if any one would "enter into life." 
To this, also, the practice of the apostles is to be 
added, who did not cease themselves from keeping 
one day in seven holy, nor teach others so to do ; 
but gave to "the Lord's day" that eminence and 
sanctity in the Christian Church which the 
seventh day had in the Jewish, by consecrating 
it to holy uses ; an alteration not affecting the 
precept at all, except in an unessential circum- 
stance, (if, indeed, in that,) and in which we may 
suppose them to act under Divine suggestion. 

Thus, then, we have the obligation of the whole 
decalogue as fully established in the Xew Testa- 
ment as in the Old as if it had been formally re- 
enacted ; and that no formal reenactment of it 
took place, is itself a presumptive proof that it 
was never regarded by the Lawgiver as tempo- 
rary, which the formality of republication might 
have supposed. 

It is important to remark, however, that al- 
though the moral laws of the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion pass into the Christian code, they stand there 
in other and higher circumstances ; so that the 
New Testament is a more perfect dispensation of 
the knowledge of the moral will of God than the 
Old. In particular, 

1. They are more expressly extended to the 
heart, as by our Lord, in his sermon on the 
mount, who teaches us that the thought and in- 
ward purpose of any offence is a violation of the 
law prohibiting its external and visible commis- 
sion. 

2. The principles on which they are founded 
are carried out in the New Testament into a 
greater variety of duties, which, by embracing 
more perfectly the social and civil relation's of 
life, are of a more universal character. 

3. There is a much more enlarged injunction 
of positive and particular virtues, especially those 
which constitute the Christian temper. 

4. By all overt acts being inseparably con- 
nected with corresponding principles in the heart, 
in order to constitute acceptable obedience, which 
principles suppose the regeneration of the soul 
by the Holy Ghost. This moral renovation is, 
therefore, held out as necessary to our salvation, 
and promised as a part of the grace of our re- 
demption by Christ. 

5. By being connected with promises of Divine 
assistance, which is peculiar to a law connected 
with evangelical provisions. 

6. By their having a living illustration in the 
perfect and practical example of Christ. 



[PART III. 

7. By the higher sanctions derived from the 
clearer revelation of a future state, and the more 
explicit promises of eternal life, and threatenings 
of eternal punishment. 

It follows from this, that we have in the gos- 
pel the most complete and perfect revelation of 
moral law ever given to men ; and a more exact 
manifestation of the brightness, perfection, and 
glory of that law, under which angels and our 
progenitors in paradise were placed, and which 
it is at once the delight and interest of the most 
perfect and happy beings to obey. 

It has, however, fared with morals as with 
doctrines, that they have been often, and by a 
strange perversity, studied without any refer- 
ence to the authority of the Scriptures. As we 
have had systems of natural religion drawn 
out of the materials furnished by the Scriptures, 
and then placed to the sole account of human 
reason, so we have also various systems of morals 
drawn, as far as the authors thought fit, from 
the same source, and put forth under the title of 
moral philosophy, implying too often, or, at 
least, sanctioning the inference, that the unas- 
sisted powers of man are equally adequate to the 
discovery of doctrine and duty ; or, at best, that 
Christianity but perfects what uninspired men 
are able not only to commence, but to carry on- 
ward to a considerable approach to perfection. 
This observation may be made as to both : that 
whatever is found correct in doctrine and pure 
in morals in ancient writers or systems, may be 
traced to indirect revelation ; and that so far as 
mere reason has applied itself to discovery in 
either, it has generally gone astray. The modern 
systems of natural religion and ethics are supe- 
rior to the ancient, not because the reason of 
their framers is superior, but because they have 
had the advantage of a light from Christianity, 
which they have not been candid enough gene- 
rally to acknowledge. For those who have writ- 
ten on such subjects with a view to lower the 
value of the Holy Scriptures, the remarks in the 
first part of this work must suffice ; but of that 
class of moral philosophers who hold the au- 
thority of the sacred books, and yet sedulously 
omit all reference to them, it may be inquired 
what they propose, by disjoining morals from 
Christianity, and considering them as a separate 
science ? Authority they cannot gain, for no ob- 
ligation to duty can be so high as the command 
of God ; nor can that authority be applied in so 
direct a manner as by a revelation of his will ; 
and as for the perfection of their system, since 
they discover no duties not already enjoined in 
the Scriptures, or grounded upon some general 
principles they contain, they can find no apo- 
logy, from the additions they make to our moral 



CH. I.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



625 



knowledge, to put Christianity, on all such sub- 
jects, wholly out of sight. 

All attempts to teach morals independent of 
Christianity, even by those who receive it as a 
Divine revelation, must, notwithstanding the 
great names which have sanctioned the practice, 
be considered as of mischievous tendency, al- 
though the design may have been laudable, and 
the labor, in some subordinate respects, not with- 
out utility : — 

1. Because they silently convey the impression 
that human reason, without assistance, is suffi- 
cient to discover the full duty of man toward 
God and toward his fellow-creatures. 

2. Because they imply a deficiency in the 
moral code of our religion, which does not ex- 
ist ; the fact being that, although these systems 
borrow much from Christianity, they do not take 
in the whole of its moral principles, and, there- 
fore, so far as they are accepted as substitutes, 
displace what is perfect for what is imperfect. 

3. Because they turn the attention from what 
is fact, the revealed law of God, with its appro- 
priate sanctions, and place the obligation to obe- 
dience either on fitness, beauty, general interest, 
or the natural authority of truth, which are all 
matters of opinion ; or, if they ultimately refer 
it to the will of God, yet they infer that will 
through various reasonings and speculations, 
which in themselves are still matters of opinion, 
and as to which men will feel themselves to be in 
some degree free. 

4. The duties they enjoin are either merely 
outward in the act — and so they disconnect them 
from internal principles and habits, without 
which they are not acceptable to God, and but 
the shadows of real virtue, however beneficial they 
may be to men — or else they assume that human 
nature is able to engraft those principles and 
habits upon itself, and to practice them without 
abatement and interruption — a notion which is 
contradicted by those very Scriptures they hold 
to be of Divine authority. 

5. Their separation of the doctrines of religion 
from its morals, leads to an entirely different pro- 
cess of promoting morality among men from that 
which the infinite wisdom and goodness of God 
has established in the Gospel. They lay down 
the rule of conduct, and recommend it from its 
excellence per se, or its influence upon individuals 
or upon society, or perhaps because it is mani- 
fested to be the will of the Supreme Being, indi- 
cated from the constitution of human nature, and 
the relations of men. But Christianity rigidly 
connects its doctrines with its morals. Its doc- 
trine of man's moral weakness is made use of to 
load him to distrust his own sufficiency. Its doc- 
trine of the atonement shows at once the infinite 

40 



evil of sin, and encourages men to seek deliver- 
ance from its power. Its doctrine of regenera- 
tion by the influence of the Holy Spirit, implies 
the entire destruction of the love of evil, and the 
direction of the whole affection of the soul to 
universal virtue. Its doctrine of prayer opens 
to man a fellowship with God, invigorating to 
every virtue. The example of Christ, the imita- 
tion of which is made obligatory upon us, is in 
itself a moral system in action and in principle ; 
and the revelation of a future judgment brings 
the whole weight of the control of future rewards 
and punishments to bear upon the motives and 
actions of men, and is the source of that fear of 
offending God which is the constant guard of 
virtue, when human motives would, in a multi- 
tude of cases, avail nothing. 

It may indeed be asked, whether the teaching 
of morals must then in all cases be kept in con- 
nection with religion? and whether the philo- 
sophy of virtues and of vices, with the lower 
motives by which they are urged upon men, may 
not be usefully investigated ? We answer, that 
if the end proposed by this is not altogether 
speculative, but something practical ; if the case 
of an immoral world is taken up by moralists 
with reference to its cure, or even to its emenda- 
tion in any effectual degree, the whole is then re- 
solved into this simple question: whether a 
weaker instrument shall be preferred to that 
which is powerful and effective ? Certain it is 
that the great end of Christianity, so far as its 
influence upon society goes, is to moralize man- 
kind ; but its infinitely wise Author has estab- 
lished and authorized but one process for the 
correction of the practical evils of the world, and 
that is, the teaching and enforcement of the 
whole truth as it stands in his own revela- 
tions ; and to this only has he promised his spe- 
cial blessing. A distinct class of ethical teachers, 
imitating heathen philosophers in the principles 
and modes of moral tuition, is, in a Christian 
country, a violent anomaly, and implies an ab- 
surd return to the twilight of knowledge after 
the sun itself has arisen upon the world. 

Within proper guards, and in strict connection 
with the whole Christian system, what is called 
moral philosophy is not, however, to be under- 
valued ; and from many of the writers above 
alluded to much useful instruction may be col- 
lected, which, though of but little efficacy in 
itself, may be invigorated by uniting it with the 
vital and energetic doctrines of religion, and 
may thus becomo directive to the conduct oi' t ho 
serious Christian. Understanding then by moral 
philosophy, not that pride of science which bor- 
rows the discoveries of the Scriptures, and then 
exhibits itself as their rival, or affects to supply 



626 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



their deficiencies, but as a modest scrutiny into 
the reasons on which the moral precepts of reve- 
lation may be grounded, and a wise and honest 
application of its moral principles to particular 
cases, it is a branch of science which may be 
usefully cultivated in connection with Christi- 
anity. 

With respect to the reasons on which moral 
precepts rest, we may make a remark similar to 
that offered in a former part of this work, on the 
doctrines of revelation. Some of those doctrines 
rest wholly on the authority of the Revealer; 
others are accompanied with a manifest rational 
evidence ; and a third class may partially disclose 
their rationale to the patient and pious inquirer. 
Yet the authority of each class as a subject of 
faith is the same : it rests upon the character of 
God, and his relations to us ; and that doctrine is 
equally binding which is enjoined on our faith 
without other rational evidence than that which 
proves it to be a part of a revelation from heaven, 
as that which exercises and delights our rational 
faculties by a disclosure of the internal evidence 
of its truth. When God has permitted us to 
"turn aside" to see some "great sight" of mani- 
fested wisdom, we are to obey the invitation ; 
but still we are always to remember that the 
authority of a revealed truth stands on infinitely 
higher ground than our perception of its reason- 
ableness. 

So also as to the moral precepts of the Bible, the 
rational evidence is afforded in different degrees, 
and it is both allowable and laudable in us to in- 
vestigate and collect it ; but still with this cau- 
tion, that the authority of such injunctions is not 
to be regulated by our perception of their rea- 
sons, although the reasons, when apparent, may 
be piously applied to commend the authority. 
The discoveries we may make of fitness or any other 
quality in a precept cannot be the highest rea- 
son of our obedience ; but may be a reason for 
obeying with accelerated alacrity. The obliga- 
tion of the Sabbath would be the same were no 
obvious reasons of mercy and piety connected 
with it ; but the influence of the precept upon 
our interests and that of the community com- 
mends the precept to our affections as well as to 
our sense of duty. 

With respect to the application of general pre- 
cepts, that practical wisdom which is the result 
of large and comprehensive observation has an 
important office. The precepts of a universal 
revelation must necessarily be, for the most part, 
general, because if rules had been given for each 
case in detail, then truly, as St. John observes, 
"the world could not have contained the books 
written." The application of these general prin- 
ciples to that variety of cases which arises in 



[PART m. 

human affairs, is the work of the Christian 
preacher and the Christian moralist. Where 
there is honesty of mind, ordinarily there can be 
no difiiculty in this ; and in cases which involve 
some difiiculty, when the interpretation of the 
law is made, as it always ought, to favor the 
rule; and when, in doubtful cases, the safer 
course is adopted, such is the explicit character 
i of the general principles of the Holy Scriptures, 
j that no one can go astray. The moral philo- 
sophy which treats of exceptions to general rules, 
| is always to be watched with jealousy, and ought 
to be shunned when it presumes to form rules 
I out of supposed exceptions. This is affecting to 
be wiser than the Lawgiver ; and such philosophy 
j assumes an authority in the control of human 
j conduct to which it has no title ; and steps in 
I between individuals and their consciences in cases 
where Almighty God himself has not chosen to 
relieve them ; and where they are specially left, 
as all sometimes are, to "Him with whom they 
! have to do," without the intervention of any third 
! party. Systems of casuistry and cases of con- 
: science have happily gone into general disuse. 
That they have done more harm upon the whole 
than good, and defiled more consciences than 
they have relieved, cannot be doubted by any 
one who has largely examined them. They have 
passed away just in proportion as the Scriptures 
; themselves have been circulated through society, 
! and as that preaching has been most prevalent 
I which enforces the doctrine of supreme love to 
! God and our neighbor, as the sum of the law and 
of the gospel. They most abounded in the Rom- 
ish Church, as best befitting its system of dark- 
; ness and delusion ; 1 and though works of this 
: kind are found among Protestants in a better 
j form, they have gradually and happily fallen into 
neglect. 

A few words may here be offered on what has 

been termed the ground of moral obligation. 

Some writers have placed this in "the eternal 

j and necessary fitness of things;" which leaves 

! the matter open to the varying conclusions which 

different individuals may draw as to this eternal 

and necessary fitness ; and, still further, leaves 

that very natural question quite unanswered: 

Why is any one obliged to act according to the 

fitness of things ? 

Others have referred to a supposed original 
perception of what is right and wrong — a kind 
of fixed and permanent and unalterable moral 
' sense, by which the qualities of actions are at 
| once determined ; and from the supposed univer- 
sal existence of this perception, they have argued 

l M. le Feore, preceptor of Louis XLTT., not unaptly 
called casuistry, " the art of quibbling -with God." 



CH. I.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



627 



the obligation to act accordingly. This scheme, 
which seems to confound that in human nature 
to which an appeal may be made when the under- 
standing is enlightened by real truth, with a dis- 
criminating and directive principle acting inde- 
pendently of instruction, is also unsatisfactory. 
For the moral sense is, in fact, found under the 
control of ignorance and error ; nor does it pos- 
sess a sensitiveness in all cases in proportion to 
the truth received into the understanding. The 
worst crimes have often been committed with a 
conviction of their being right, as in the case of 
religious persecutions ; and the absence of the 
habit of attending to the quality of our actions 
often renders the abstract truth laid up in the 
understanding useless as to its influence upon 
the conscience. But if all that is said of this 
moral sense were true, still it would not establish 
the principle of obligation. That supposes supe- 
rior authority ; and should we allow the moral 
sense to act uniformly, still, how is the obligation 
to perform what it approves to be demonstrated, 
unless some higher consideration be added to the 
case? 

More modern moralists have taken the ten- 
dency of any course of action to produce the 
greatest good upon the whole as the source of 
moral obligation ; and with this they often con- 
nect the will of God, of which they consider this 
general tendency to be the manifestation. It 
were better, surely, to refer at once to the will 
of God, as revealed by himself, without encumber- 
ing the subject with the circuitous, and, at best, 
doubtful process of first considering what is good 
upon the whole, and then inferring that this must 
needs be the will of a wise and benevolent Being. 
The objection, too, holds in this case, that this 
theory leaves it still a mere matter of opinion, in 
which an interested party is to be the judge, 
whether an action be upon the whole good; and 
gives a rule which would be with difficulty ap- 
plied to some cases, and is scarcely at all appli- 
cable to many others which may be supposed. 

The only satisfactory answer which the ques- 
tion, as to the source of moral obligation, can 
receive, is, that it is found in the will of God. 
For since the question respects the duty of a 
created being with reference to his Creator, 
nothing can be more conclusive than that the 
Creator has an absolute right to the obedience 
of his creatures ; and that the creature is in duty 
obliged to obey Him from whom it not only has 
received being, but by whom that being is con- 
stantly sustained. It has indeed been said, that 
even if it be admitted that I am obliged to obey 
the will of God, the question is still open, 
"Why am I obliged to obey his will?" and that 
this brings us round to the formor answer : be- 



cause he can only will what is upon the whole 
best for his creatures. But this is confounding 
that which may be, and doubtless is, a rule to 
God in the commands which he issues, with that 
which really obliges the creature. Now, that 
which in truth obliges the creature is not the 
nature of the commands issued by God, but the 
relation in which the creature itself stands to 
God. If a creature can have no existence, nor 
any power or faculty, independently of God, it 
can have no right to employ its faculties inde- 
pendently of him ; and if it have no right to em- 
ploy its faculties in an independent manner, the 
right to rule its conduct must rest with the Cre- 
ator alone ; and from this results the obligation 
of the creature to obey. 

Such is the principle assumed in the Scrip- 
tures, where the creative and rectoral relations 
of God are inseparably united, and the obligation 
of obedience is made to follow upon the fact of 
our existence ; and if the will of God, as the 
source of obligation, be so obvious a rule, the 
only remaining question is, whether we shall 
receive that will as it is expressly revealed by 
himself ; or, wilfully forgetting that such a reve- 
lation has been made, we shall proceed to infer 
it by various processes of induction ? The an- 
swer to this might have been safely left to the 
common sense of mankind, had not the vanity of 
philosophizing so often interposed to perplex so 
plain a point. 

We must not here confound the will of God as 
the source of moral obligation, with the notion 
that right and wrong have no existence but as 
they are so constituted by the will of God. They 
must have their foundation in the reality of 
things. What moral rectitude is, and why it 
obliges, are quite distinct questions. It is to the 
latter only that the preceding observations apply. 
As to the former, the following remarks, from a 
recent intelligent publication, are very satisfac- 
tory: 

"Virtue, as it regards man, is the conformity 
or harmony of his affections and actions with the 
various relations in which he has been placed ; 
of which conformity the perfect intellect of God, 
guided in its exercise by his infinitely holy 
nature, is the only infallible judge. 

"We sustain various relations to God himself. 
He is our Creator, our Preserver, our Beuefactor, 
our Governor. 'He is the Framer of our bodies, 
and the Father of our spirits.' He sustains us 
'by the word of his power;' for, as we are 
necessarily dependent beings, our continued ex- 
istence is a kind of prolonged creation. We owe 

all that we possess to him ; and OUT future bJ 
ings must flow from his kindness. Now, there 
are obviously certain affections and aetions which 



628 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



harmonize or correspond with these relations. 
To love and obey God manifestly befit our rela- 
tion to him, as that great Being from whom our 
existence, as well as all our comforts, flow. He 
who showers his blessings upon us ought to pos- 
sess our affections : he who formed us has a right 
to our obedience. It is not stated merely, let it 
be observed, that it is impossible to contemplate 
our relation to God without perceiving that we 
are morally bound to love and obey him ; (though 
that is a truth of great importance ;) for I do not 
consent to the propriety of the representation 
that virtue depends either upon our perceptions 
or our feelings. There is a real harmony between 
the relations in which we stand to God, and the 
feelings and conduct to which reference has been 
made ; and therefore the human mind has been 
formed capable of perceiving and feeling it. 

"We sustain various relations to each other. God 
has formed 'of one blood all the families of the 
earth.' Mutual love and brotherly kindness, 
the fruit of love, are required by this relation : 
they harmonize or correspond with it. We are 
children : we are loved, and guarded, and sup- 
ported, and tended with unwearied assiduity by 
our parents. Filial affection and filial obedience 
are demanded by this relation. No other state 
of mind, no other conduct, will harmonize with 
it. "We are perhaps, on the other hand, parents. 
Instrumentally, at least, we have imparted exist- 
ence to our children: they depend on us for pro- 
tection, support, etc. ; and to render that support 
is required by the relation we bear to them. It 
is, however, needless to specify the various rela- 
tions in which we stand to each other. With 
reference to all, I again say, that they necessa- 
rily involve obligations to certain states of mind, 
and certain modes of conduct, as harmonizing 
with the relations ; and that rectitude is the con- 
formity of the character and conduct of an indi- 
vidual with the relations in which he stands to 
the beings by whom he is surrounded. 

"It is by no means certain to me that this 
harmony between the actions and the relations 
of a moral agent, is not what we are to under- 
stand by that 'conformity to the fitness of things,' 
in which some writers have made the essence of 
virtue to consist. Against this doctrine it has 
been objected that it is indefinite, if not absurd; 
because, as it is alleged, it represents an action 
as right and fit, without stating what it is fit for ; 
an absurdity as great, says the objector, as it 
would be to say that 'the angles at the base of 
an isosceles triangle are equal, without adding, to 
one another, or to any other angle.' Dr. Brown 
also, in arguing against this doctrine, says : ' There 
must be a principle of moral regard, independ- 
ent of reason, or reason mav in vain see a 



[PART III. 

thousand fitnesses, and a thousand truths ; and 
would be warmed with the same lively emotions 
of indignation against an inaccurate timepiece, 
or an error in arithmetic calculation, as against 
the wretch who robbed, by every fraud that could 
elude the law, those who had already little of 
which they could be deprived, that he might riot 
a little more luxuriously, while the helpless, 
whom he had plundered, were starving around 
him.' Now, why may we not say, in answer to 
the former objector, that the conformity of an 
action with the relations of the agent is the 
fitness for which Clarke contends ? And why may 
we not reply to Dr. Brown, that — allowing, as 
we do, the necessity of that susceptibility of 
moral emotion for which he contends — the emo- 
tion of approbation which arises on the contem- 
plation of a virtuous action, is not the virtue of 
the action, nor the perception of its accordance 
with the relations of the agent, but the accord- 
ance itself ? ' That a being,' says Dewar, 
' endowed with certain powers, is bound to love 
and obey the Creator and Preserver of all, is 
truth, whether I perceive it or no ; and we 
cannot perceive it possible that it can ever be 
reversed.' 

"All the relations to which reference has been 
made are, in one sense, arbitrary. Our exist- 
ence as creatures is to be ascribed to the mere 
good pleasure of God. The relations which bind 
society together, the conjugal, parental, filial rela- 
tion, depend entirely upon the sovereign will of 
Him who gave us our being ; but the conduct to 
which these relations oblige us, is by no means 
arbitrary. Having determined to constitute the 
relations, he could not but enjoin upon us the con- 
duct which his word prescribes. He was under 
no obligation to create us at all ; but, having 
given us existence, he could not fail to command 
us to love and obey him. There is a harmony 
between these relations and these duties — a har- 
mony which is not only perceived by us — for to 
state that merely, would seem to make our per- 
ceptions the rule if not the foundation of duty — 
but which is perceived by the perfect intellect 
of God himself. And since the relations we 
sustain were constituted by God ; since he is the 
Judge of the affections and conduct which har- 
monize with these relations — that which appears 
right to him being right on that account — rectitude 
may be regarded as conformity to the moral nature 
of God, the ultimate standard of virtue." — Payne's 
Elements of Mental and Moral Science. 

To the revealed will of God we may now turn 
for information on the interesting subject of 
morals ; and we shall find that the ethics of Christi- 
anity have a glory and perfection which philoso- 
phy has never heightened, and which its only 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY 



629 



true office is to display, and to keep before the 
attention of mankind. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 

The duties we owe to God are in Scripture 
summed up in the word " godliness," the founda- 
tion of which, and of duties of every other kind, 
is that entire 

Submission to God, which springs from a due 
sense of that relation in which we stand to him, 
as creatures. 

We have just seen that the right of an abso- 
lute sovereignty over us must, in the reason of 
the case, exist exclusively in Him that made us ; 
and it is the perception and recognition of this, 
as a practical habit of the mind, which renders 
outward acts of obedience sincere and religious. 
The will of God is the only rule to man, in every 
thing on which that will has declared itself; and 
as it lays its injunctions upon the heart as well 
as the life, the rule is equally in force when it 
directs our opinions, our motives, and affections, as 
when it enjoins or prohibits external acts. We 
are his because he made us ; and to this is added 
the confirmation of this right by our redemp- 
tion: "Ye are not your own, for ye are bought 
with a price ; therefore glorify God in your body 
and in your spirit, which are God's.'" These ideas 
of absolute right to command on the part of God, 
and of absolute obligation to universal obedience 
on the part of man, are united in the profession of 
St. Paul, "Whose I am and whom I serve;" and from 
the grand fundamental principle of "godliness" 
both in the Old and New Testament ; the will of 
God being laid down in each, both as the highest 
reason and the most powerful motive to obe- 
dience. The application of this principle so 
established by the Scriptures will show how 
greatly superior is the ground on which Chris- 
tianity places moral virtue to that of any other 
system. For, 

1. The will of God, which is the rule of duty, 
is authenticated by the whole of that stupendous 
evidence which proves the Scriptures to be of 
Divine original. 

2. That will at once defines and enforces every 
branch of inward and outward purity, rectitude, 
and benevolence. 

3. It annuls by its authority every other rule 
of conduct contrary to itself, whether it arise 
from custom, or from the example, persuasion, or 
opinions of others. 

4. It is a rule which admits not of being low- 



ered to the weak and fallen state of human 
nature; but, connecting itself with a gracious 
dispensation of supernatural help, it directs the 
morally imbecile to that remedy, and holds every 
one guilty of the violation of all that he is by 
nature and habit unable to perform, if that rem- 
edy be neglected. 

5. It accommodates not itself to the inte- 
rests or even safety of men ; but requires that 
interest, honor, liberty, and life, should be sur- 
rendered, rather than it should sustain any vio- 
lation. 

6. It admits no exceptions in obedience, but 
requires it whole and entire; so that outward 
virtue cannot be taken in the place of that which 
has its seat in the heart ; and it allows no acts 
to be really virtuous, but those which spring 
from a willing and submissive mind, and are 
done upon the vital principle of a distinct recog- 
nition of our rightful subjection to God. 

Love to God. To serve and obey God on the 
conviction that it is right to serve and obey him, 
is in Christianity joined with that love to God 
which gives life and animation to service, and 
renders it the means of exalting our pleasures, 
at the same time that it accords with our convic- 
tions. The supreme love of God is the chief, 
therefore, of what have been called our theopa- 
thetic affections. It is the sum and the end of 
law ; and though lost by us in Adam, is restored 
to us by Christ. When it regards God absolutely, 
and in himself, as a being of infinite and harmo- 
nious perfections and moral beauties, it is that 
movement of the soul toward him which is pro- 
duced by admiration, approval, and delight. 
When it regards him relatively, it fixes upon the 
ceaseless emanations of his goodness to us in the 
continuance of the existence which he at first 
bestowed ; the circumstances which render that 
existence felicitous ; and, above all, upon that 
" great love wherewith he loved us," manifested 
in the gift of his Son for our redemption, and in 
saving us by his grace ; or, in the forcible lan- 
guage of St. Paul, upon "the exceeding riches of 
his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ 
Jesus." Under all these views, an unbounded 
gratitude overflows the heart which is influenced 
by this spiritual affection. But the love of God 
is more than a sentiment of gratitude. It re- 
joices in his perfections and glories, and devoutly 
contemplates them as the highest and most 
interesting subjects of thought; it keeps the 
idea of this supremely beloved object constantly 
present to the mind; it turns to it with adoring 
ardor from the business and distractions of lite : 
it connects it with every scene of majesty and 
beauty in nature, and with every event of gen- 
eral and particular providence ; it brings the 



630 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PAET m. 



soul into fellowship with God, real and sensible, ; 
"because vital; it moulds the other affections into 
conformity with what God himself wills or pro- 
hibits, loves or hates ; it produces an unbounded 
desire to please him and to be accepted of him 
in all things; it is jealous of his honor, un- 
wearied in his service, quick to prompt to every 
sacrifice in the cause of his truth and his Church ; 
and it renders all such sacrifices, even when car- 
ried to the extent of suffering and death, unre- 
luctant and cheerful. It chooses God as the 
chief good of the soul, the enjoyment of which 
assures its perfect and eternal interest and hap- 
piness. "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and 
there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee,'' 
is the language of every heart, when its love of 
God is true in principle and supreme in degree. 

If. then, the will of God is the perfect rule of 
morals ; and if supreme and perfect love to God 
must produce a prompt, an unwearied, a delight- 
ful subjection to his will, or rather an entire and 
most free choice of it as the rule of all our prin- 
ciples, affections, and actions, the importance of 
this affection in securing that obedience to the 
law of God in which true morality consists is 
manifest : and we clearly perceive the reason 
why an inspired writer has affirmed that "love 
is the fulfilling of the law." The necessity of 
keeping this subject before us under those views 
in which it is placed in the Christian system, 
and of not surrendering it to mere philosophy, 
is. however, an important consideration. With 
the philosopher, the love of God may be the mere 
approval of the intellect : or a sentiment which 
results from the contemplation of infinite perfec- 
tion, manifesting itself in acts of power and 
goodness. In the Scriptures it is much more 
than either, and is produced and maintained by 
a different process. We are there taught that 
"the carnal mind is enmity against God;" and is 
not of course capable of loving God. Yet this 
carnal mind may consist with deep attainments in 
philosophy, and with strongly impassioned poetic 
sentiment. The mere approval of the under- 
standing, and the susceptibility of being im- 
pressed with feelings of admiration, awe, and 
even pleasure, when the character of God is 
manifested in his works, as both may be found 
in the carnal mind which is enmity to God, are 
not therefore the love of God. They are prin- 
ciples which enter into that love, since it cannot 
exist without them : but they may exist without 
this affection itself, and be found in a vicious and 
unchanged nature. The love of God is a fruit 
of the Holy Spirit : that is. it is implanted by 
him only in the souls which he has regenerated ; 
and as that which excites its exercise is chiefly, 
and in the first place, a sense of the benefits 



bestowed by the grace of God in our redemp- 
tion, and a well-grounded persuasion of our per- 
sonal interest in those benefits, it necessarily 
presupposes our personal reconciliation to God 
through faith in the atonement of Christ, and 
that attestation of it to the heart by the Spirit 
of adoption of which we have before spoken. 
We here see, then, another proof of the neces- 
sary connection of Christian morals with Chris- 
tian doctrine, and how imperfect and deceptive 
every system must be which separates them. 
Love is essential to true obedience ; for when the 
apostle declares love to be "the fulfilling of 
the law," he declares, in effect, that the law 
cannot be fulfilled without love ; and that every 
action which has not this for its principle, how- 
ever virtuous in its show, fails of accomplishing 
the precepts which are obligatory upon us. But 
this love to God cannot be felt so long as we are 
sensible of his wrath, and are in dread of his 
judgments. These feelings are incompatible with 
each other, and we must be assured of his recon- 
ciliation to us, before we are capable of loving 
him. Thus the very existence of the love of 
God implies the doctrines of the atonement, 
repentance, faith, and the gift of the Spirit of 
adoption to believers ; and unless it be taught 
in this connection, and through this process of 
experience, it will be exhibited only as a bright 
and beauteous object to which man has no access ; 
or a fictitious and imitative sentimentalism will 
be substituted for it, to the delusion of the souls 
of men. 

A third leading duty is, 

Trust in God. All creatures are dependent 
upon God for being and for well-being. Inani- 
mate and irrational beings hold their existence, 
and the benefits which may accompany it, inde- 
pendently of any conditions to be performed on 
their part. Rational creatures are placed under 
another rule, and their felicity rests only upon 
their obedience. Whether, as to those intelli- 
gences who have never sinned, specific exercises 
of trust are required as a duty comprehended in 
their general obedience, we know not. But as 
to men, the whole Scripture shows that faith or 
trust is a duty of the first class, and that they 
"stand only by faith." Whether the reason of 
this may be the importance to themselves of 
being continually impressed with their depend- 
ence upon God, so that they may fly to him at 
all times, and escape the disappointments of self- 
confidence and creature-reliances : or that as all 
good actually comes from God, he ought to be 
recognized as its source, so that all creatures 
may glorify him; or whether other and more 
secret reasons may also be included : the fact 
that this duty is solemnly enjoined as an essen- 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



631 






tial part of true religion, cannot be doubted. 
Nor can the connection of this habit of devoutly 
confiding in God with our peace of mind be over- 
looked. We have so many proofs of the weak- 
ness both of our intellectual and physical powers, 
and see ourselves so liable to the influence of 
combinations of circumstances which we cannot 
control, and of accidents which we cannot resist, 
that, unless we had assurances of being guided, 
upheld, and defended by a Supreme Power, we 
might become, and that not unreasonably, a prey 
to constant apprehensions, and the sport of the 
most saddening anticipations of the imagination. 
Our sole remedy from these would, in fact, only be 
found in insensibility and thoughtlessness ; for 
to a reflecting and awakened mind, nothing can 
shut out uneasy fears but faith in God. In all 
ages, therefore, this has been the resource of de- 
vout men: "God is our refuge and strength, a 
very present help in trouble ; therefore will not 
we fear," etc., Psalm xlvi. 1. "Our fathers 
trusted in thee, and thou didst deliver them : 
they cried unto thee, and were delivered : they 
trusted in thee, and were not confounded." And 
from our Lord's sermon on the mount it is clear 
that one end of his teaching was to deliver men 
from the piercing anxieties which the perplexi- 
ties of this life are apt to produce, by encour- 
aging them to confide in the care and bounty of 
their "Heavenly Father." 

Our trust in God is enjoined in as many 
respects as he has been pleased to give us assur- 
ances of help, and promises of favor, in his own 
word. Beyond that, trust would be presump- 
tion, as not having authority; and to the full 
extent in which his gracious purposes toward us 
are manifested, it becomes a duty. And here, 
too, the same connection of this duty with the 
leading doctrines of our redemption, which we 
have remarked under the last particular, also 
displays itself. If morals be taught independent 
of religion, either affiance in God must be ex- 
cluded from the list of duties toward God, or 
otherwise it will be inculcated without effect. 
A man who is conscious of unremitted sins, and 
who must therefore regard the administration of 
the Ruler of the world, as to him, punitive and 
vengeful, can find no ground on which to rest his 
trust. All that he can do is to hope that his 
relations to this Being may in future become 
more favorable ; but for the present, his fears 
must prevent the exercise of his faith. What 
course then lies before him, but in the first 
instance to seek the restoration of the favor of 
his offended God, in that method which ho has 
prescribed, namely, by repentance toward God, 
and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ? Till a 
scriptural assurance is obtained of that change 



in his relations to God which is effected by the 
free and gracious act of forgiveness, all the rea- 
sons of general trust in the care, benediction, 
and guidance of God, are vain as to him, because 
they are not applicable to his case. But when 
friendship is restored between the parties, faith, 
however unlimited, has the highest reason. It 
is then "a sure confidence in the mercy of God 
through Christ," as that mercy manifests itself 
in all the promises which God has been pleased 
to make to his children, and in all those con- 
descending relations with which he has been 
pleased to invest himself, that under such mani- 
festations he might win and secure our reliance. 
It is then the confidence not merely of creatures 
in a beneficent Creator, or of subjects in a gra- 
cious Sovereign, but of children in a Parent. 
It respects the supply of every want, temporal 
and eternal ; the wise and gracious ordering of 
our concerns ; the warding off or the mitigation 
of calamities and afflictions; our preservation 
from all that can upon the whole be injurious to 
us ; our guidance through life ; our hope in 
death ; and our future felicity in another world. 
This trust is a duty because it is a subject of 
command; and also because, after such demon- 
strations of kindness, distrust would imply a 
dishonorable denial of the love and faithfulness 
of God, and often also a criminal dependence 
upon the creature. It is a habit essential tc 
piety. On that condition we "obtain promises," 
by making them the subjects of prayer; by its 
influence, anxieties destructive to that calm con- 
templative habit of which true religion is both 
the offspring and the nurse, are expelled from 
the heart ; a spiritual character is thus given to 
man, who walks as seeing "Him who is invisible ;" 
and a noble and cheerful courage is infused into 
the soul, which elevates it above all cowardly 
shrinking from difficulty, suffering, pain, and 
death, and affords a practical exemplification of 
the exhortation of one who had tried the value 
of this grace in a great variety of exigencies: 
"Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and 
he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, 
on the Lord." 

The fear of God is associated with love and 
trust in every part of Holy Scripture ; and is 
enjoined upon us as another of our leading duties. 

This, however, is not a servile passion ; for 
then it could not consist with love to God, and 
with delight and affiance in him. It is true that 
"the fear which hath torment" — that which is 
accompanied with painful apprehensions of his 
displeasure, arising from a just conviction of our 
personal liability to it — is enjoined upon the cue- 
less and the impious. To produce this, the word 

of God fulminates in threatenings, and his judg- 



632 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



merits march through the earth exhibiting terri- 
ble examples of vengeance against one nation or 
individual for the admonition of others. But 
that fear of God which arises from apprehension 
of personal punishment, is not designed to be 
the habit of the mind ; nor is it included in the 
frequent phrase, "the fear of the Lord," when 
that is used to express the -whole of practical reli- 
gion, or its leading principles. In that case its 
nature is, in part, expressed by the term ' ' rever- 
ence. *' ^vhich is a due and humbling sense of the 
Divine majesty, produced and maintained in a 
mind regenerated by the Holy Spirit, by devout 
meditations upon the perfections of his infinite 
nature, his eternity and omniscience, his constant 
presence -with us in every place, the depths of 
his counsels, the might of his power, the holi- 
ness, truth, and justice of his moral character; 
and on the manifestations of these glories in the 
"works of that mighty visible nature with which 
we are surrounded, in the government of angels, 
devils, and men, and in the revelations of his in- 
spired word. 

With this deeply reverential awe of God is, 
however, constantly joined in Scripture a per- 
suasion of our conditional liability to his dis- 
pleasure. For since all who have obtained his 
mercy and favor by Christ receive those blessings 
through an atonement, which itself demonstrates 
that we are under a righteous administration, 
and that neither is the law of God repealed, nor 
does his justice sleep : and further, since the 
saving benefits of that atonement are conditional, 
and we ourselves have the power to turn aside 
the benefit of its interposition from us, or to for- 
feit it when once received, in whole or in part, 
it is clear that while there is a full provision for 
our deliverance from the "spirit of bondage to 
fear," there is sufficient reason why we ought to 
be so impressed with our spiritual dangers, as to 
produce in us that cautionary fear of the holiness, 
justice, and power of God, which shall deter us 
from offending, and lead us often to view, with a re- 
straining and salutary dread, those consequences 
of unfaithfulness and disobedience to which, 
at least while we remain on earth, we are liable. 
Powerful, therefore, as are the reasons by which 
the scriptural revelation of the mercy and be- 
nevolence of God enforces a firm affiance in him, 
it exhorts us not to be "high-minded/' but to 
"fear;" to "fear" lest we "come short" of the \ 
"promise" of entering "into his rest;" to be in 
"the fear of the Lord all the day long;" and to 
pass the whole time of our "sojourning" here 
"in fear." 

This scriptural view of the fear of God, as 
combining both reverence of the Divine majesty, 
and a suitable apprehension of our conditional 



[PART ILL 



liability to his displeasure, is of large practical 
influence. 

It restrains our faith from degenerating into 
presumption; our love into familiarity ; our joy 
into carelessness. It nurtures humility, watch- 
fulness, and the spirit of prayer. It induces a 
reverent habit of thinking and speaking of God, 
and gives solemnity to the exercises of devo- 
tion. 

It presents sin to us under its true aspect, as 
dangerous as well as corrupting to the soul ; as 
darkening our prospects in a future life, as well 
as injurious to our peace in the present ; and it 
gives strength and efficacy to that most import- 
ant practical moral principle, the constant refer- 
ence of our inward habits of thought and feeling, 
and our outward actions, to the approbation of 
God. 

Upon these internal principles, that moral habit 
and state which is often expressed by the term 
holiness rests. Separate from these principles, 
it can only consist in visible acts, imperfect in 
themselves, because not vital, and, however com- 
mended by men, abominable to God, who trieth 
the heart. But when such acts proceed from 
these sources, they are proportioned to the 
strength and purity of the principle which origi- 
nates them, except as in some cases they may be 
influenced and deteriorated by an uninformed or 
weak judgment. An entire submission to God; 
a "perfect love" to him; firm affiance in his 
covenant engagements ; and that fear which 
abases the spirit before God, and departs even 
from "the appearance of evil," when joined with 
a right understanding of the word of God, render 
"the man of God perfect.*'' and "thoroughly 
furnish him to every good work." 

Beside these inward principles and affections, 
there are, however, several other habits and acts, 
a public performance of which, as well as their 
more secret exercises, have been termed by di- 
vines our external duties toward God; the 
term "external" being, however, so used as not 
to exclude those exercises of the heart from 
which they must all spring if acceptable to God. 
The first is, 

Prater, which is a solemn addressing of oar 
minds to God, as the Fountain of being and hap- 
piness, the Ruler of the world, and the Father 
of the family of man. It includes in it the ac- 
knowledgment of the Divine perfections and 
sovereignty, thankfulness for the mercies we 
have received, penitential confession of our sins, 
and an earnest entreaty of blessings both for 
ourselves and others. "When vocal, it is an ex- 
ternal act, but supposes the correspondence of 
the will and affection ; yet it may be purely 
mental, all the acts of which it is composed be- 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY 



633 



ing often conceived in the mind, when not clothed 
in words. 

That the practice of prayer is enjoined upon 
us in Scripture, is sufficiently proved by a few 
quotations: "Ask, and it shall be given you: 
seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it shall be 
opened." Matt. vii. 7. "Watch ye therefore and 
pray always." Luke xxi. 36. "Be careful for 
nothing ; but in every thing, by prayer and sup- 
plication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be 
made known unto God." Phil. iv. 6. "Pray 
without ceasing." 1 Thess. v. 17. That prayer 
necessarily includes earnestness, and that perse- 
verance which is inspired by strong desire, is 
evident from the Jews being so severely reproved 
for "drawing near to God with their mouth, while 
their hearts were far from him;" from the 
general rule of our Lord, laid down in his con- 
versation with the woman of Sychar: "God is a 
Spirit ; and they that worship him must worship 
him in spirit and in truth," John iv. 24 ; and from 
Romans xii. 12, "Continuing instant in prayer." 
Here the term, npoaKaprspovvreg, is very ener- 
getic, and denotes, as Chrysostom observes, 
"fervent, persevering, and earnest prayer." 
Our Lord also delivered a parable to teach us 
that we ought "to pray and not faint;" and we 
have examples of the success of reiterating our 
petitions, when for some time they appear disre- 
garded. One of these is afforded in the case of 
the woman of Canaan, a first and a second time 
repulsed by our Lord ; and another occurs in 2 
Cor. xii. 8, 9 : " For this thing I besought the Lord 
thrice that it might depart from me ; and he said 
unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee," etc. 
This passage also affords an instance of praying 
distinctly for particular blessings — a practice 
which accords also with the direction in Phil. iv. 
6, to make our "requests known unto God," 
which includes not only our desires for good 
generally, but also those particular requests 
which are suggested by special circumstances. 
Directions to pray for national and public bless- 
ings occur in Psalm cxxii. 6: "Pray for the 
peace of Jerusalem : they shall prosper that 
love thee:" in Zech. x. 1, "Ask ye of the Lord 
rain in the time of the latter rain ; so the Lord 
shall make bright clouds, (or lightnings,) and 
give them showers of rain, to every one grass in 
the field:" in 1 Tim. ii. 1-3, "I exhort there- 
fore that, first of all, supplications, prayers, 
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for 
all men ; for kings, and for all that are in autho- 
rity ; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life 
in all godliness and honesty ; for this is good and 
acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour," etc. 
More particular intercession for others is also 
authorized and enjoined: "Peter was thercforo 



kept in prison; but prayer was made without 
ceasing of the Church unto God for him." Acts 
xii. 5. "Now I beseech you, brethren, for the 
Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the 
Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your 
prayers to God for me ; that I may be delivered 
from them that do not believe in Judea," etc. 
Rom. xv. 30. "Confess your faults one to an- 
other, and pray one for another, that ye may be 
healed." James v. 16. 

It follows, therefore, from these scriptural 
passages, that prayer is a duty ; that it is made 
a condition of our receiving good at the hand of 
God ; that every case of personal pressure, or 
need, may be made the subject of prayer; that 
we are to intercede for all immediately connected 
with us, for the Church, for our country, and for 
all mankind; that both temporal and spiritual 
blessings may be the subject of our supplications ; 
and that these great and solemn exercises are 
to be accompanied with grateful thanksgivings to 
God, as the author of all blessings already be- 
stowed, and the benevolent object of our hope 
as to future interpositions and supplies. Prayer, 
in its particular Christian view, is briefly and 
well defined in the Westminster Catechism: 
"Prayer is the offering of our desires to God for 
things agreeable to his will, in the name of 
Christ, with confession of our sins, and a thank- 
ful acknowledgment of his mercies." 

The reason on which this great and efficacious 
duty rests has been a subject of some debate. 
On this point, however, we have nothing ex- 
plicitly stated in the Scriptures. From them we 
learn only that God has appointed it ; that he 
enjoins it to be offered in faith, that is, faith in 
Christ, whose atonement is the meritorious and 
procuring cause of all the blessings to which our 
desires can be directed ; and that prayer so 
offered is an indispensable condition of our ob- 
taining the blessings for which we ask. As a 
matter of inference, however, we may discover 
some glimpses of the reason in the Divine mind 
on which its appointment rests. That reason 
has sometimes been said to be the moral prepara- 
tion and state of fitness produced in the soul for 
the reception of the Divine mercies which the 
act, and more especially the habit of prayer 
must induce. Against this stands the strong, 
and, in a scriptural view, the fatal objection, that 
an efficiency is thus ascribed to tho mere act of 
a creature to produce those great, and in many 
respects radical changes in tho character of 
man, which we are taught by Inspired authority 
to refer to the direct influences of the Holy 
Spirit. No man can realize the forgiveness of 
sin without repentanoe. Vet thai is expressly 
said to be the "gift" of Christ, and supposes 



^ 



FHEOLOGICAI IN S TITXT1 



strong operations of the in-mrnnfitincr and con- 
vinei ng : truth, the Lord and Giver of 

ad if the mere acta and habit 
of prayer had efficiency enough to prol 

:Tral repentance, then every formali- 
tending with ordinary seriousr. : his I ; ~ : - 
Hist, in c •;. - iziz^". 

:. if we pray for spiritual ight. 

wifh an earnestness of desire which 

a from a due apprehension of their import- 

and a preference of them to all earthly 

good, who does not see that th is implies such a 

:-ance from the earthly and carnal disposi- 
6 d — hieh characterises our degenerate nature, 
a agency far above our own, however we 
may employ it. must be supposed ; or else, if our 
own prayers could be efficient up to this pant w 
might, by the continual application of this instru- 
!_>=.:. : — "ie:~ :ii rrrr^rririin. ir.ie -enler.: :: 
that grace of God which, after all, this theory 
brings in. It may indeed be said that the grace 
of God operates by our prayers to produce in us 

te of moral fitness to receive the fales 
we ask. Bat Has gives up the point contended 
for — the moral efficiency of prayer — and refers 
the efficiency to another agent, working by our 
prayers as an instrument. StiH, however, it may 
be affirmed that the Scriptures nowhere repre- 
sent prayer as an instrument for improving our 
moral state, though in the hands of Divine _ :: 
in any other way than as the means of bringing 
into the soul new supplies of spiritual life and 
strength. Ft is therefore more properly to be 

I rared as a condition of our obtaining that 
grace by which such effects are wrought, tba-n as 
the instrument by which it effects them. In 
all genuine acts of prayer depend upon a grace 
previously bestowed, and from which alone the 
. md the power to pray proceed. So 
it was id of Saul of Tarsus, -Behold he pray- 

He prayed in fact then for the firs: : am 
but that was in consequence of the illumination 
of his mind as to his spiritual danger, effected 
by the miracle on the way to Damascus, and the 
grace of God which accompanied the miracle. 
2sor does the miraculous character of the means 
by which conviction was produced in his mind, 
affect the relevancy of this to ordinary 
By whatever means God may be pleased to : 

eviction of our spiritual danger upon our 
minds, and to awaken us out of the long sleep 
of sin, that conviction must precede real prayer, 
and comes from the influence of 3 . ren- 

dering the means of conviction effectual. Z 

- : t the prayer which produces the convic- 
ut the conviction which gives birth to the 
prayer: and if we pursue the matter ini 
subsequer.: ire shall come to the same, 



result. We pray "for what we feel we want, that 
is, for something not in our possession : we ob- 
tain this either by importation from God, to 
whom we look up as the only Being able to be- 
stow the good for which we ask him ; or else 
we obtain it. according to this theory, by some 
moral efficiency being given to the 
praying to work it in us. Now, the latter hypo- 
thesae is in many eases manifestly absurd. We 
ask for pardon of sin, for instance : but that is 
an act of God done for us, quite distinct from 
any moral change which prayer may be said to 
produce in us. whatever efficiency we may ascribe 
''- i: : :::" '-'. 5 -:"_ :_.::: ir. us : :.~ ': erri:: 
Hoee ihat must proceed from the party offended. 

sk for increase of spiritual strength : and 
prayer is the expression of that want. But if it 
supply this want by its own moral efficieu 
must supply it in proportion to its intensity and 
-: ~_.i."_ iu: ...-::- : _ '. :":^_::_r-i 
can only be called forth by the degree in which 
the want is felt: sc that the Ease supposed is 
contradictory and absurd, as it makes the sense 

:: —:.-: :: \-_ iu r: :r ::ri:u :: :h? svu"- i; _i:u 

ought to abate or remove it. And if it be urged 
that prayer at least produces in us a fitnf 
the supply of spiritual strength, because it is 
excited ~ a sense of our wants, the ansvr 
thai ffae fitness eonteuiri ::: 
sense of want itself, which must be produced in 
us by ihe previous agency of gra i uould 

never pray for supplies. There is, in fact, no- 
thing in prayer simply which appears to have 
any adaptation, as an instrument, to effect a moral 
change in man, although it should be supposed 
to be made use of by the influence of the Holy 
Spirit. The word of God is properly an instru- 
ment, because it contains the doctrine which that 
Spirit explains and applies, and the moti~ 
faith and obedience which he enforces upon the 

lence and affections; and though prayer 
brings these truths and motives before us. prayer 
cannot properly be said to be an instrument of 
our regeneration, because that which is thus 
brought by prayer to bear upon our case i - 
word of God itself introduced into our pr ■;. 
which derive their sole influence in that respect 
from that circumstance. Prayer simply :- 
application of an insufficient to a sufficient Being 
for the good which the former cannot otherwise 
obtain, and which the latter only can srr 
and as that supply is dependent upon prayer, 
and in the nature of the thing consequent, prayer 
can in no good sense be said to be the instrument 
of supplying our wants, or fitting us for their 
supply, except relatively, as a mere condition 
appointed by the donor. 

If we must inquire into the reason of the ap- 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



G35 



pointinent of prayer — and it can scarcely be con- 
sidered as a purely arbitrary institution — that 
reason seems to be, the preservation in the minds 
of men of a solemn and impressive sense of God's 
agency in the world, and the dependence of all 
creatures upon him. Perfectly pure and glori- 
fied beings, no longer in a state of probation, and 
therefore exposed to no temptations, may not 
need this institution; but men in their fallen 
state are constantly prone to forget God — to rest 
in the agency of second causes, and to build upon 
a sufficiency in themselves. This is at once a 
denial to God of the glory which he rightly claims, 
and a destructive delusion to creatures, who, in 
forsaking God as the object of their constant 
affiance, trust but in broken reeds, and attempt 
to drink from "broken cisterns that can hold 
no water." It is then equally in mercy to us, as 
in respect to his own honor and acknowledgment, 
that the Divine Being has suspended so many of 
his blessings, and those of the highest necessity 
to us, upon the exercise of prayer : an act which 
acknowledges his uncontrollable agency, and the 
dependence of all creatures upon him ; our in- 
sufficiency, and his fulness ; and lays the found- 
ation of that habit of gratitude and thanksgiving, 
which is at once so ameliorating to our own feel- 
ings, and so conducive to a cheerful obedience to the 
will of God. And if this reason for the injunc- 
tion of prayer is nowhere in the Scriptures stated 
in so many words, it is a principle uniformly sup- 
posed as the foundation of the whole scheme of 
religion which they have revealed. 

To this duty objections have been sometimes 
offered, at which it may be well at least to glance. 

One has been grounded upon a supposed pre- 
destination of all things which come to pass ; and 
the argument is, that as this established prede- 
termination of all things cannot be altered, 
prayer, which supposes that God will depart from 
it, is vain and useless. The answer which a 
pious predestinarian would give to this objection 
is, that the argument drawn from the predesti- 
nation of God lies with the same force against 
every other human effort as against prayer ; and 
that as God's predetermination to give food to 
man does not render the cultivation of the earth 
useless and impertinent, so neither does the pre- 
destination of things shut out the necessity and 
efficacy of prayer. It would also be urged that 
God has ordained the means as well as the end ; 
and although he is an unchangeable Being, it is 
a part of the unchangeable system which he has 
established, that prayer shall be heard and ac- 
cepted. 

Those who have not these views of predestina- 
tion will answer the objection differently; for if 
the premises of BUoh B predestination as is as- 



sumed by the objection, and conceded in the an- 
! swer, be allowed, the answer is unsatisfactory. 
The Scriptures represent God, for instance, as 
purposing to inflict a judgment upon an indivi- 
dual or a nation, which purpose is often changed 
by prayer. In this case either God's purpose 
must be denied, and then his threatenings are 
reduced to words without meaning ; or the pur- 
pose must be allowed, in which case either prayer 
breaks in upon predestination, if understood ab- 
solutely, or it is vain and useless. To the objec- 
tion so drawn out, it is clear that no answer is 
given by saying that the means as well as the end 
are predestinated, since prayer in such cases is 
not a means to the end, but an instrument of 
thwarting it ; or is a means to one end in oppo- 
sition to another end, which, if equally predesti- 
nated with the same absoluteness, is a contradic- 
tion. 

The true answer is, that although God has ab- 
solutely predetermined some things, there are 
others, which respect his government of free and 
accountable agents, which he has but condition- 
ally predetermined. The true immutability of God 
we have already shown, (part ii., chap, xxviii.,) 
consists, not in his adherence to his purposes, but 
in his never changing the principles of his admin- 
istration; and he may therefore, in perfect ac- 
cordance with his preordination of things, and 
the immutability of his nature, purpose to do, 
under certain conditions dependent upon the free 
agency of man, what he will not do under others ; 
and for this reason, that an immutable adherence 
to the principles of a wise, just, and gracious go- 
vernment, requires it. Prayer is in Scripture 
made one of these conditions; and if God has 
established it as one of the principles of his moral 
government to accept prayer, in every case in 
which he has given us authority to ask, he has 
not, we may be assured, entangled his actual 
government of the world with the bonds of such 
an eternal predestination of particular events, as 
either to reduce prayer to a mere form of words, 
or not to be able himself, consistently with- his 
decrees, to answer it, whenever it is encouraged 
by his express engagement. 

A second objection is, that as God is infinitely 
wise and good, his wisdom and justice will lead 
him to bestow "whatever is fit for us without 
praying ; and if any thing be not fit for US, we 
cannot obtain it by praying." To this Dr. Paloy 
very well replies, [Moral Philosophy,) '-That it 
maybe agreeable to perfect wisdom to grant that 
to our prayers which it would not have been 
agreeable to the same wisdom to have given us 
without praying for." This, independent of the 
question dC the authority of the Seriptures. which 

explicitly enjoin prayer, is the best answer which 



636 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



can be given to the objection ; and it is no small 
confirmation of it, that it is obvious to every re- 
flecting man, that for God to withhold favors till 
asked for, " tends," as the same writer observes, 
" to encourage devotion among his rational crea- 
tures, and to keep up and circulate a knowledge 
and sense of their dependency upon him." 

But it is urged, " God will always do what is 
best from the moral perfection of his nature, 
whether we pray or not." This objection, how- 
ever, supposes that there is but one mode of 
acting for the best, and that the Divine will is 
necessarily determined to that mode only, "both 
which positions," says Paley, "presume a know- 
ledge of universal nature, much beyond what we 
are capable of attaining." It is, indeed, a very 
unsatisfactory mode of speaking, to say, God 
will always do what is best; since we can con- 
ceive him capable in all cases of doing what is 
still better for the creature, and also that the 
creature is capable of receiving more and more 
from his infinite fulness for ever. All that can 
be rationally meant by such a phrase is, that, in 
the circumstances of the case, God will always do 
what is most consistent with his own wisdom, 
holiness, and goodness ; but then the disposition 
to pray, and the act of praying, add a new cir- 
cumstance to every case, and often bring many 
other new circumstances along with them. It 
supposes humility, contrition, and trust, on the 
part of the creature ; and an acknowledgment of 
the power and compassion of God, and of the 
merit of the atonement of Christ ; all which are 
manifestly new positions, so to speak, of the cir- 
cumstances of the creature, which, upon the 
very principle of the objection, rationally under- 
stood, must be taken into consideration. 

But if the efficacy of prayer as to ourselves be 
granted, its influence upon the case of others is 
said to be more difficult to conceive. This may 
be allowed without at all affecting the duty. 
Those who bow to the authority of the Scrip- 
tures will see that the duty of praying for our- 
selves and for others rests upon the same Divine 
appointment ; and to those who ask for the rea- 
son of such intercession in behalf of others, it 
is sufficient to reply, that the efficacy of prayer 
being established in one case, there is the same 
reason to conclude that our prayers may benefit 
others, as any other effort we may use. It can 
only be by Divine appointment that one creature 
is made dependent upon another for any advan- 
tage, since it was doubtless in the power of the 
Creator to have rendered each independent of all 
but himself. Whatever reason, therefore, might 
lead him to connect and interweave the interests 
of one man with the benevolence of another, 
will be the leading reason for that kind of mutual 



[PART HI. 

dependence which is implied in the benefit of 
mutual prayer. Were it only that a previous 
sympathy, charity, and good- will are implied in 
the duty, and must, indeed, be cultivated in order 
to it, and be strengthened by it, the wisdom and 
benevolence of the institution would, it is pre- 
sumed, be apparent to every well-constituted 
mind. That all prayer for others must proceed 
upon a less perfect knowledge of them than we 
have of ourselves, is certain : that all our peti- 
tions must be, even in our own mind, more con- 
ditional than those which respect ourselves, 
though many of these must be subjected to the 
principles of a general administration, which we 
but partially apprehend ; and that all spiritual 
influences upon others, when they are the sub- 
ject of our prayers, will be understood by us as 
liable to the control of their free agency, must 
also be conceded; and, therefore, when others 
are concerned, our prayers may often be par- 
tially or wholly fruitless. He who believes the 
Scriptures will, however, be encouraged by the 
declaration, that "the effectual fervent prayer 
of a righteous man," for his fellow-creatures, 
"availeth much;" and he who demands some- 
thing beyond mere authoritative declaration, as 
he cannot deny that prayer is one of those in- 
struments by which another may be benefited, 
I must acknowledge that, like the giving of coun- 
sel, it may be of great utility in some cases, al- 
! though it should fail in others ; and that as no 
! man can tell how much good counsel may influ- 
; ence another, or in many cases say whether it 
i has ultimately failed or not, so it is with prayer. 
, It is a part of the Divine plan, as revealed in the 
\ Bible, to give many blessings to man independ- 
ent of his own prayers, leaving the subsequent 
improvement of them to himself. They are given 
' in honor of the intercession of Christ, man's 
great "Advocate;" and they are given, subordi- 
nately, in acceptance of the prayers of Christ's 
I Church, and of righteous individuals. And when 
! many, or few, devout individuals become thus 
I the instruments of good to communities, or to 
whole nations, there is no greater mystery in 
this than in the obvious fact, that the happiness 
or misery of large masses of mankind is often 
greatly affected by the wisdom or the errors, the 
skill or the incompetence, the good or the bad 
conduct of a few persons, and often of one. 

The general duty of prayer is usually distri- 
buted into four branches — ejaculatory, private, 
social, and public ; each of which is of such im- 
portance as to require a separate consideration. 
Ejaculatory prater is the term given to 
those secret and frequent aspirations of the heart 
; to God for general or particular blessings, by 
; which a just sense of our habitual dependence 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



63T 



upon God, and of our wants and dangers, may 
be expressed, at those intervals when the thoughts 
can detach themselves from the affairs of life, 
though but for a moment, while we are still em- 
ployed in them. It includes, too, all those short 
and occasional effusions of gratitude, and silent 
ascriptions of praise, which the remembrance of 
God's mercies will excite in a devotional spirit, 
under the same circumstances. Both, however, 
presuppose what divines have called "the spirit 
of prayer," which springs from a sense of our 
dependence upon God, and is a breathing of the 
desires after intercourse of thought and affection 
with him, accompanied with a reverential and 
encouraging sense of his constant presence with 
us. The cultivation of this spirit is clearly en- 
joined upon us as a duty by the Apostle Paul, 
who exhorts us to "pray without ceasing, and in 
every thing give thanks ;" and also to "set our 
affection upon things above " — exhortations 
which imply a holy and devotional frame and 
temper of mind, and not merely acts of prayer 
performed at intervals. The high and unspeak- 
able advantages of this habit are, that it in- 
duces a watchful and guarded mind ; prevents 
religion from deteriorating into form without 
life ; unites the soul to God, its light and strength ; 
induces continual supplies of Divine influence ; 
and opposes an effectual barrier, by the grace 
thus acquired, against the encroachments of 
worldly anxieties, and the force of temptations. 
The existence of this spirit of prayer and thanks- 
giving is one of the grand distinctions between 
nominal and real Christians ; and by it the mea- 
sure of vital and effective Christianity enjoyed 
by any individual may ordinarily be determined. 
Private prayer. This, as a duty, rests upon 
the examples of good men in Scripture ; upon 
several passages of an injunctive character in the 
Old Testament; and, in the New, upon the ex- 
press words of our Lord, which, while they sup- 
pose the practice of individual prayer to have 
been generally acknowledged as obligatory, en- 
join that it should be strictly private. "But thou, 
when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, 1 and 
when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father 
which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in 
secret shall reward thee openly." In this re- 
spect, also, Christ has himself placed us under 
the obligation of his own example — the evangel- 
ists having been inspired to put on record several 
instances of his retirement into absolute privacy 
that he might "pray." The reason for this in- 
stitution of private devotion appears to have been 

1 YAc to rafiiuov. Kuinoel observes tli.it the word 
"answers to the Hebrew PVylPj an upper room Bet apart 
for retirement and prayer among the orientals." 



to incite us to a friendly and confiding inter- 
course with God in all those particular cases 
which most concern our feelings and our in- 
terests ; and it is a most affecting instance of the 
condescension and sympathy of God that we are 
thus allowed to use a freedom with him, in 
"pouring out our hearts," which we could not 
do with our best and dearest friends. It is also 
most worthy of our notice that when this duty is 
enjoined upon us by our Lord, he presents the 
Divine Being before us under a relation most of 
all adapted to inspire that unlimited confidence 
with which he would have us to approach him : 
" Pray to thy Father which is in secret." Thus 
is the dread of his omniscience, indicated by his 
"seeing in secret," and of those other over- 
whelming attributes which omnipresence and 
omniscience cannot fail to suggest, mitigated, or 
only employed to inspire greater freedom, and a 
stronger affiance. 

Family prayer. Paley states the peculiar use 
of family prayer to consist in its influence upon 
servants and children, whose attention may be 
more easily commanded by this than by public 
worship. "The example and authority of a 
master and father, act, also, in this way with 
greater force ; and the ardor of devotion is better 
supported, and the sympathy more easily propa- 
gated, through a small assembly, connected by 
the affections of domestic society, than in the 
presence of a mixed congregation." There is, 
doubtless, weight in these remarks ; but they are 
defective, both in not stating the obligation of 
this important duty, and in not fully exhibiting 
its advantages. 

The absence of an express precept for family 
worship has, it is true, been urged against its 
obligation even by some who have still considered 
it as a prudential and useful ordinance. But the 
strict obligation of so important a duty is not to 
be conceded for a moment, since it so plainly 
arises out of the very constitution of a family ; 
and is confirmed by the earliest examples of the 
Church of God. On the first of these points, the 
following observations, from a very able and in- 
teresting work, (Anderson on the Domestic Con- 
stitution,) are of great weight: — 

" The disposition of some men, professing 
Christianity, to ask peremptorily for a, particular 
precept in all cases of incumbent moral duty, is 
one which every Christian would do well to ex- 
amine : not only that he may never be troubled 
with it himself, but that he may be at no loss in 
answering such a man, if he is called to oonverse 
with him. The particular duty to which ho re- 
fers — say, for example, family worship — is com- 
paratively of small account. His question itself 
is indicative not merely of great ignorance: it is 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



symptomatic of the want of religious principle. 
When a man says that he can only be hound to 
such a duty, a moral duty, by a positive and par- 
ticular precept, I am satisfied that he could not 
perform it in obedience to any precept whatever ; 
nor could he even now, though he were to try. 
The truth is, that this man has no disposition 
toward such worship, and he rather requires to 
be informed of the grounds of all such obliga- 
tion. 

" The duty of family devotion, therefore, let it 
be remembered, though it had been minutely en- 
joined as to both substance and season, would 
not, after all, have been founded only on such 
injunctions. I want the reader thoroughly to 
understand the character of a Christian, the con- 
stitution of the family ; and out of this character 
and that constitution, he will find certain duties 
to arise necessarily ; that is, they are essential to 
the continuance and well-being of himself as a 
Christian parent, and of the constitution over 
which he is set. In this case there can be no 
question as to their obligation, and for a precept 
there is no necessity. The Almighty, in his word, 
has not only said nothing in vain, but nothing 
except what is necessary. Now, as to family 
worship, for a particular precept I have no wish ; 
no, not even for the sake of others, because I am 
persuaded that the Christian, in his sober senses, 
trill naturally obey, and no other can. 

" To apply, however, this request for a precise 
precept to some other branches of family duty : 
"What would be thought of me were I to demand 
an express precept to enforce my obligation to 
feed my children, and another to oblige me to 
clothe them? one to express my obligation to 
teach them the use of letters, and another to se- 
pare my training them to lawful or creditable 
professions or employments? 'All this/ very 
properly you might reply, ' is absurd in the high- 
est degree : your obligation rests on much higher 
ground ; nay, doth not nature itself teach you in 
this, and much more than this ?' 'Very true,' I 
reply ; ' and is renewed nature, then, not to teach 
me far more still? To what other nature are 
such words as these addressed? — Whatsoever 
things are true, whatsoever things are honest, what- 
soever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, 
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are 
of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there 
be any praise, think on these things.' 

" Independently, however, of all this evidence 
with any rational Christian parent. I may confirm 
and establish his mind on much higher ground 
than even that which these pointed examples 
afford. To such a parent I might say, 'Without 
hesitation, you will admit that your obligations 
to your family are to be measured now, and on . 



[part in. 

the day of final account, by your capacity — as a 
man by your natural, as a Christian by your 
spiritual capacity ; and, however you may feel 
conscious of falling short daily, that you are 
under obligation to honor God to the utmost limit 
of this capacity. Tou will also allow that, 
standing where you do, you are not now, like a 
solitary orphan without relatives, to be regarded 
only as a single individual. God himself, your 
Creator, your Saviour, and your Judge, regards 
you as the head of a family; and, therefore, in 
possession of a sacred trust : you have the care 
of souls. Now, if you really do measure obli- 
gation by capacity, then you will also at once 
allow that you must do what you can, that he 
may, from your family, have as much honor as 
possible. 

" ' Without hesitation, you will also allow that 
God daily preserves you. And does he not also 
preserve your family ? But if he preserves, he 
has a right of property in each and all under 
your roof. Shall he not, therefore, have from 
you acknowledgment of this ? If daily he pre- 
serves, shall he not be daily acknowledged ? And 
if acknowledged at all, how ought he to be so, 
if not upon your knees? And how can they 
know this if they do not hear it ? 

" 'Without hesitation, you will also allow that 
you are a social as well as a reasonable being. 
And often have you, therefore, felt how much 
the soothing influence of their sweet society has 
sustained you under your cares and trials, and 
grief itself. ! surely then, as a social being, 
you owe to them social worship ; nor should you 
ever forget that in ancient days there was social 
worship here before it could be anywhere else.' " 

The same excellent writer has not, in his sub- 
sequent argument, given to the last remark in 
the above quotation all the force which it de- 
mands ; for that social worship existed before 
worship more properly called public, that is, wor- 
ship in indiscriminate assemblies, is the point 
which, when followed out, most fully establishes 
the obligation, A great part, at least, of the 
worship of the patriarchal times was domestic. 
The worship of God was observed in the families 
of Abraham, Jacob, and Job ; nay, the highest 
species of worship, the offering of sacrifices, 
which it could not have been without Divine ap- 
pointment. It arose, therefore, out of the origi- 
nal constitution of a family that the father and 
natural head was invested with a sacred and re- 
ligious character, and that with reference to his 
family ; and if this has never been revoked by 
subsequent prohibition, but, on the contrary, if 
its continuance has been subsequently recognized, 
then the family priesthood continues in force, 
and stands on the same around as several other 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



639 



religious obligations, which have passed from 
one dispensation of revealed religion to another, 
•without express reenactment. 

Let us then inquire whether any such revoca- 
tion of this office, as originally vested in the 
father of a family, took place after the appoint- 
ment of a particular order of priests under the 
Mosaic economy. It is true that national sacri- 
fices were offered by the Aaronical priests, and 
perhaps some of those consuetudinary sacrifices 
which, in the patriarchal ages, were offered by 
the heads of families, and had reference specially 
to the general dispensation of religion under 
which every family was equally placed ; yet the 
passover was a solemn religious act, the domestic 
nature of which is plainly marked, and it was to 
be an ordinance for ever, and therefore was not 
taken out of the hands of the heads of families 
by the institution of the Aaronical priesthood, 
although the ceremony comprehended several 
direct acts of worship. The solemn instruction 
of the family is also in the law of Moses en- 
joined upon the father : " Thou shalt teach them 
diligently to thy children;" and he was also di- 
rected to teach them the import of the different 
festivals and other commemorative institutions. 
Thus the original relation of the father to his 
family, which existed in the patriarchal age, is 
seen still in existence, though changed in some 
of its circumstances by the law. He is still the 
religious teacher ; still he offers prayers for them 
to God; and still " blesses" — an act which im- 
ports both prayer, praise, and official benediction. 
So the family of Jesse had a yearly sacrifice. 
1 Sam. xx. 6. So David, although not a priest, 
returned to "bless his household;" and our Lord 
filled the office of the master of a family, as ap- 
pears from his eating the passover with his dis- 
ciples, and presiding as such over the whole rite ; 
and although the passage, " Pour out thy fury 
upon the heathen, and upon the families which 
call not on thy name," (Jer. x. 25,) does not 
perhaps decidedly refer to acts of domestic wor- 
ship, yet it is probable that the phraseology was 
influenced by that practice among the pious Jews 
themselves ; neither did the heathen nationally, 
nor in their families, acknowledge God. Nor is 
it a trifling confirmation of the ancient practice 
of a formal and visible domestic religion, that in 
paganism, which corrupted the forms of the true 
religion, and especially those of the patriarchal 
dispensation, we see the signs of a family as well 
as a public idolatry, as exhibited in their private 
"chambers of imagery," their household deities, 
and the religious ceremonies which it was in- 
cumbent upon the head of every house to per- 
form. 



! The sacred character and office of the father 
and master of a household passed from Judaism 
into Christianity ; for here, also, we find nothing 
which revokes and repeals it. A duty so well 
understood both among Jews and even heathens, 
as that the head of the house ought to influence 
its religious character, needed no special injunc- 
tion. The father or master who believed was 
baptized, and all his "house ;" the first religious 
societies were chiefly domestic ; and the antiquity 
of domestic religious services among Christians, 
| leaves it unquestionable, that when the number 
of Christians increased so as to require a separate 
assembly in some common room or church, the 
domestic worship was not superseded. But for 
the division of verses in the fourth chapter of the 
Epistle to the Colossians, it would scarcely have 
been suspected that the first and second verses 
contained two distinct and unconnected precepts : 
" Masters, give unto your servants that which is 
just and equal, knowing that ye also have a 
Master in heaven: continue in prayer, and watch 
in the same with thanksgiving;" a collocation of 
persons and duties which seems to intimate that 
the sense of the apostle was that the "servant," 
the slave, should partake of the benefit of those 
continual prayers and daily thanksgivings which 
it is enjoined upon the master to offer. 

As the obligation to this branch of devotion is 
passed over by Paley, so the advantages of family 
worship are but very imperfectly stated by him. 
The offering of prayer to God in a family cannot 
but lay the ground of a special regard to its in- 
terests and concerns on the part of Him who is 
thus constantly acknowledged ; and the advan- 
tage, therefore, is more than a mere sentimental 
one ; and more than that of giving effect to the 
"master's example." The blessings of provi- 
dence and of grace, defence against evil, or 
peculiar supports under it, may thus be expected 
from Him who has said: "In all thy ways ac- 
knowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths;" 
and that where two or three are met in his name, 
he is "in the midst of them." The family is a 
"church in a house ;" and its ministrations, as 
they are acceptable to God, cannot but be fol- 
lowed by his direct blessing. 

Public prater, under which we include the 
assembling of ourselves together for every branch 
of public worship. 

The scriptural obligation of this is partly 
founded upon example, and partly upon precept ; 
so that no person who admits that authority, can 
question this great duty without manifest and 
criminal inconsistency. The institution oi' pub- 
lic Worship under the law; the practice of syna- 
gogue worship among the Jews, from at least the 



640 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART III. 



time of Ezra, 1 cannot be questioned ; both which 
■were sanctioned by the practice of our Lord and 
his apostles. The course of the synagogue wor- 
ship became indeed the model of that of the 
Christian Church. It consisted in prayer, read- 
ing and explaining the Scriptures, and singing 
psalms ; and thus one of the most important 
means of instructing nations, and of spreading 
and maintaining the influence of morals and reli- 
gion among a people, passed from the Jews into 
all Christian countries. 

The preceptive authority for our regular attend- 
ance upon public worship, is either inferential or 
direct. The command to publish the gospel in- 
cludes the obligation of assembling to hear it; 
the name by which a Christian society is desig- 
nated in Scripture is a church; which signifies 
an "assembly" for the transaction of some busi- 
ness ; and, in the case of a Christian assembly, 
the business must be necessarily spiritual, and 
include the sacred exercises of prayer, praise, 
and hearing the Scriptures. But we have more 
direct precepts, although the practice was obvi- 
ously continued from Judaism, and was therefore 
consuetudinary. Some of the epistles of Paul 
are commanded to be read in the churches. The 
singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, is 
enjoined as an act of solemn worship "to the 
Lord;" and St. Paul cautions the Hebrews that 
they "forsake not the assembling of themselves 
together." The practice of the primitive age is 
also manifest from the epistles of St. Paul. The 
Lord's Supper was celebrated by the body of 
believers collectively ; and this apostle prescribes 
to the Corinthians regulations for the exercises 
of prayer and prophesyings, "when they came 
together in the church" — the assembly. The 
statedness and order of these "holy offices" in 
the primitive Church, appears also from the 
apostolical epistle of St. Clement: "We ought 
also, looking into the depths of the Divine know- 
ledge, to do all things in order, whatsoever the 
Lord hath commanded to be done. We ought 
to make our oblations, and perform our holy 
offices, at their appointed seasons ; for these he 
hath commanded to be done, not irregularly or 
by chance, but at determinate times and hours ; 
as he hath likewise ordained, by his supreme will, 
where, and by what persons, they shall be per- 
formed ; that so all things being done according 
to his pleasure, may be acceptable in his 
sight." This passage is remarkable for urging 
a Divine authority for the public services of the 

1 Some writers contend that synagogues were as old aa 
the ceremonial law. That they were ancient is proved 
from Acts xv. 21 : " Moses of old time hath in every city 
them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every 
Sabbath day." 



: Church, by which St. Clement, no doubt, means 
j the authority of the inspired directions of the 
apostles. 

The ends of the institution of public worship 
are of such obvious importance, that it must 
I ever be considered as one of the most conde- 
scending and gracious dispensations of God to 
; man. By this his Church confesses his name 
before the world ; by this the public teaching of 
his word is associated with acts calculated to 
affect the mind with that solemnity which is the 
best preparation for hearing it to edification. It 
is thus that the ignorant and vicious are collected 
together, and instructed and warned ; the invita- 
tions of mercy are published to the guilty, and 
the sorrowful and afflicted are comforted. In 
these assemblies, God, by his Holy Spirit, diffuses 
his vital and sanctifying influence, and takes the 
devout into a fellowship with himself, from which 
they derive strength to do and to suffer his will 
in the various scenes of life, while he thus affords 
them a foretaste of the deep and hallowed plea- 
sures which are reserved for them at "his right 
hand for evermore." Prayers and intercessions 
are here heard for national and public interests ; 
and while the benefit of these exercises descends 
upon a country, all are kept sensible of the de- 
pendence of every public and personal interest 
upon God. Praise calls forth the grateful emo- 
tions, and gives cheerfulness to piety; and that 
"instruction in righteousness," which is so 
perpetually repeated, diffuses the principles of 
morality and religion throughout society; en- 
lightens and gives activity to conscience ; raises 
the standard of morals ; attaches shame to vice, 
and praise to virtue ; and thus exerts a powerfully 
purifying influence upon mankind. Laws thus 
receive a force which in other circumstances 
they could not acquire, even were they enacted 
in as great perfection ; and the administration 
j of justice is aided by the strongest possible 
obligation and sanction being given to legal 
oaths. The domestic relations are rendered 
more strong and interesting, by the very habit 
! of the attendance of families upon the sacred 
| services of the sanctuary of the Lord ; and the 
i rich and the poor meeting together there, and 
i standing on the same common ground of sinners 
before God, equally dependent upon him, and 
equally suing for his mercy, has a powerful, 
though often an insensible influence in humbling 
the pride which is nourished by superior rank, 
and in raising the lower classes above abjectness 
of spirit, without injuring their humility. Piety, 
benevolence, and patriotism, are equally depend- 
ent for their purity and vigor upon the regular 
and devout worship of God in the simplicity of 
the Christian dispensation. 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



641 



A few words on liturgies, or forms of prayer, 
may here have a proper place. 

The necessity of adhering to the simplicity of 
the first age of the Church, as to worship, need 
scarcely be defended by argument. If no liberty 
were intended to be given to accommodate the 
modes of worship to the circumstances of differ- 
ent people and times, we should, no doubt, have 
had some express directory on the subject in 
Scripture ; but in the exercise of this liberty, 
steady regard is to be paid to the spirit and 
genius and simple character of Christianity, and 
a respectful deference to the practice of the 
apostles and their immediate successors. With- 
out these, formality and superstition, to both of 
which human nature is very liable, are apt to be 
induced ; and when once they enter they increase, 
as the history of the Church sufficiently shows, 
indefinitely, until true religion is buried beneath 
the mass of observances which have been intro- 
duced as her aids and handmaids. Our Lord's 
own words are here directly applicable and im- 
portant: "God is a Spirit; and they that wor- 
ship him must worship him in spirit and in 
truth." The worship must be adapted to the 
spiritual nature of God, and to his revealed 
perfections. To such a Being the number of 
prayers, the quantity of worship so to speak, to 
which corrupt Churches have attached so much 
importance, can be of no value. As a Spirit, he 
seeks the worship of the spirit of man ; and 
regards nothing external in that worship but as 
it is the expression of those emotions of humility, 
faith, gratitude, and hope, which are the prin- 
ciples he condescendingly approves in man. 
"True" worship, we are also taught by these 
words, is the worship of the heart : it springs 
from humility, faith, gratitude, and hope; and 
its final cause or end is to better man, by bring- 
ing upon his affections the sanctifying and 
comforting influence of grace. The modes of 
worship which best promote this end, and most 
effectually call these principles into exercise, are 
those, therefore, which best accord with our 
Lord's rule ; and if in the apostolic age we see 
this end of worship most directly accomplished, 
and these emotions most vigorously and with 
greatest purity excited, the novelties of human 
invention can add nothing to the effect, and for 
that very reason have greatly diminished it. In 
the Latin and Greek Churches we see a striking 
conformity in the vestments, the processions, the 
pictures, and images, and other parts of a com- 
plex and gorgeous ceremonial, to the Jewish 
typical worship, and to that of the Gentiles, which 
was an imitation of it without typical meaning. 
But it is not even pretended that in these cir- 
cumstances it is founded upon primitive practice; 
41 



or, if pretended, this is obviously an impudent 
assumption. 

Liturgies, or forms of service, do not certainly 
come under this censure, except when they con- 
tain superstitious acts of devotion to saints, or 
are so complicated, numerous, and lengthened, 
that the only principle to which they can be 
referred is the common but unworthy notion 
that the Divine Being is rendered placable by 
continued service ; or that the wearisome exer- 
cise of vocal prayers, continued for long periods, 
and in painful postures, is a necessary penance 
to man, and, as such, acceptable to God. In 
those Reformed Churches of Christendom in 
which they are used, they have been greatly 
abridged, as well as purified from the corruptions 
of the middle ages. In some they are more 
copious than in others, while many religious 
societies have rejected their use altogether ; and 
in a few they are so used as to afford competent 
space also for extempore devotion. 

The advocates and opponents of the use of 
forms of prayer in public worship, have both run 
into great extremes, and attempted generally to 
prove too much against each other. 

If the use of forms of prayer in prose be ob- 
jected to, their use in verse ought to be rejected 
on the same principle ; and extemporaneous 
psalms and hymns must, for consistency's sake, 
be required of a minister, as well as extempora- 
neous prayers, or the practice of singing, as a 
part of God's worship, must be given up. 
Again : If the objection to the use of a form of 
prayer be not in its matter, but merely as it con- 
tains petitions not composed by ourselves, or by 
the officiating minister on the occasion, the same 
objection would lie to our using any petitions 
found in the Psalms or other devotional parts of 
Scripture, although adapted to our case, and ex- 
pressed in words far more fitting than our own. 
If we think precomposed prayers incompatible 
with devotion, we make it essential to devotion 
that we should frame our desires into our own 
words ; whereas nothing can be more plain than 
that, whoever has composed the words, if they 
correspond with our desires, they become the 
prayer of our hearts, and are, as such, accept- 
able to God. The objection to petitionary forms 
composed by others, supposes also that we know 
the things which it is proper for us to ask, with- 
out the assistance of others. This may bo some- 
times the case; but as we must be taught what 
to pray for by the Holy Scriptures, so, in pro- 
portion as we understand what we are authorised 
to pray for by those Scriptures, our prayers bo- 
come more varied, and distinct, ami oomprehen- 
sive, and, therefore, edifying. But all helps to 
the understanding of the Scriptures, as to what 



642 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



they encourage us to ask of God, are helps to us 
in prayer. Thus, the exposition of Christian 
privileges and blessings from the pulpit, affords 
us this assistance ; thus the public extempore 
prayers -we hear offered by ministers and enlight- 
ened Christians, assist us in the same respect; 
and the written and recorded prayers of the wise 
and pious in different ages fulfil the same office, 
and to so great an extent, that scarcely any who 
offer extempore prayer escape falling into phrases 
and terms of expression, or even entire petitions, 
which have been originally derived from liturgies. 
Even in extempore services, the child accustomed 
to the modes of precatory expression used by the 
parent, and the people to those of their ministers, 
imitate them unconsciously ; finding the desires 
of their hearts already embodied in suitable and 
impressive words. 

The objection, therefore, to the use of forms 
of prayer, when absolute, is absurd, and involves 
principles which no one acts upon, or can act 
upon. It also disregards example and antiquity. 
The high priest of the Jews pronounced yearly 
a form of benediction. The Psalms of David and 
other inspired Hebrew poets, whether chanted or 
read makes no difference, were composed for the 
use of the sanctuary, and formed a part of the 
regular devotions of the people. Forms of prayer 
were used in the synagogue service of the Jews, 
which, though multiplied in subsequent times so 
as to render the service tedious and superstitious, 
had among them some that were in use between 
the return from the captivity and the Christian era, 
and were therefore sanctioned by the practice of 
our Lord and his apostles. (Prideatjx: Connection. 
Fol. edit., vol. i., p. 304.) John Baptist appears 
also to have given a form of prayer to his disci- 
ples, in which he was followed by our Lord. The 
latter has indeed been questioned, and were it 
to be argued that our Lord intended that form 
of prayer alone to be used, too much would be 
proved by the advocates of forms. On the other 
hand, although the words, " after this manner 
pray ye," intimate that the Lord's Prayer was 
given as a model of prayer, so the words in an- 
other evangelist, "when ye pray, say," as fully 
indicate an intention to prescribe a form. It 
seems, therefore, fair to consider the Lord's 
Prayer as intended both as a model and a form ; 
and he must be very fastidious who, though he 
uses it as the model of his own prayers, by para- 
phrasing its petitions in his own words, should 
scruple to use it in its native simplicity and force 
as a form. That its use as a form, though not 
its exclusive use, was originally intended by our 
Lord, appears, I think, very clearly, from the 
disciples desiring to be taught to pray "as John 
taught his disciples." If, as it has been alleged, 



[PART III. 

the Jewish rabbins, at so early a period, were in 
the custom of giving short forms of prayer to 
their disciples, to be used in the form given, or 
to be enlarged upon by the pupil at his pleasure, 
this would fully explain the request of the disci- 
ples. However, without laying much stress upon 
the antiquity of this practice, we may urge, that 
if John Baptist gave a form of prayer to his fol- 
lowers, the conduct of our Lord in teaching his 
disciples to pray by what is manifestly a regu- 
larly connected series of petitions, is accordant 
with their request ; but if the Baptist only 
taught what topics ought to be introduced in 
prayer, and the disciples of Jesus wished to be 
instructed in like manner, it is difficult to ac- 
count for their request being granted, not by his 
giving directions as to the topics of prayer, but 
by his uttering a regular prayer itself. That our 
Lord intended that prayer to be used as adapted 
to that period of his dispensation ; and that the 
petitions in that form are admirably applicable 
to every period of Christianity, and may be used 
profitably ; and that its use implies a devout re- 
spect to the words of Him "who spake as never 
man spake ;" are points from which there does 
not appear any reasonable ground of dissent. 

The practice of the primitive Church may also 
be urged in favor of liturgies. Founded, as the 
early worship of Christians was, upon the model 
of the synagogue, the use of short forms of 
prayer, or collects, by them, is at least probable. 
It must, indeed, be granted, that extended and 
regular liturgies were of a later date ; and that 
extempore prayers were constantly offered in 
their assemblies for public worship. This ap- 
pears clear enough from several passages in St. 
Paul's epistles, and the writings of the fathers ; 
so that no liturgical service can be so framed as 
entirely to shut out, or not to leave convenient 
space for, extempore prayer by the minister, 
without departing from the earliest models. But 
the Lord's Prayer appears to have been in fre- 
quent use in the earliest times, and a series of 
collects ; which seems allowed even by Lord King, 
although he proves that the practice for the min- 
ister to pray " according to his ability," * that is, 
to use his gifts in extempore prayer, was a con- 
stant part of the public worship in the first 
ages. 

Much, therefore, is evidently left to wisdom 
and prudence in a case where we have no explicit 
direction in the Scriptures; and, as a general 
rule, to be modified by circumstances, we may 
perhaps with safety affirm, that the best mode 

i This expression occurs in Justin Martyr's Second Apo- 
logy, where he particularly describes the mode of primitive 
worship. 



CH. II.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



643 



of public -worship is that which unites a brief 
scriptural liturgy with extempore prayers by the 
minister. This will more clearly appear if we 
consider the exceedingly futile character of those 
objections which have been reciprocally employed 
by the opponents and advocates of forms, when 
they have carried their views to an extreme. 

To public liturgies it has been objected, that 
"forms of prayer composed in one age become 
unfit for another, by the unavoidable change of 
language, circumstances, and opinions." To 
this it may be answered, 1. That whatever weight 
there may be in the objection, it can only apply 
to cases where the form is, in all its parts, made 
imperative upon the officiating minister, or where 
the Church imposing it neglects to accommodate 
the liturgy to meet all such changes, when inno- 
cent. 2. That the general language of no form 
of prayer among ourselves has become obsolete 
in point of fact ; a few expressions only being, 
according to modern notions, uncouth or un- 
usual. 3. That the petitions they contain are 
suited, more or less, to all men at all times, 
whatever may be their "circumstances;" and 
that as to "opinions," if they so change in a 
Church as to become unscriptural, it is an ad- 
vantage arising out of a public form, that it is 
auxiliary to the Scriptures in bearing testimony 
against them ; that a natural reverence for an- 
cient forms tends to preserve their use, after 
opinions have become lax; and that they are 
sometimes the means of recovering a Church 
from error. 

Another objection is, that the perpetual repe- 
tition of the same form of words produces weari- 
ness and inattentiveness in the congregation. 
There is some truth in this ; but it is often car- 
ried much too far. A devotional mind will not 
weary in the repetition of a scriptural and well- 
arranged liturgy, if not too long to be sustained 
by the infirmity of the body. Whether forms 
be used, or extempore prayer be practiced, 
effort and application of mind are necessary in 
the hearer to enter into the spirit of the words ; 
and each mode is wearisome to the careless and 
indevout,. though not, we grant, in equal degrees. 
The objection, as far as it has any weight, would 
be reduced to nothing, were the liturgy repeated 
only at one service on the Sabbath, so that at the 
others the minister might be left at liberty to 
pray with more direct reference to the special 
circumstances of the people, the Church, and 
the world. 

The general character which all forms of prayer 
must take, is a third objection ; but this is not 
true absolutely of any liturgy, and much less of 
that of the Church of England. All prayer must 



and ought to be general, because we ask for 
blessings which all others need as much as our- 
selves ; but that particularity which goes into 
the different parts of a Christian's religious ex- 
perience and conflicts, dangers and duties, is 
found very forcibly and feelingly expressed in 
that liturgy. That greater particularity is often 
needed than this excellent form of prayer con- 
tains, must, however, be allowed; and this, as 
well as prayer suited to occasional circumstances, 
might be supplied by the more frequent use of 
extempore prayer, without displacing the liturgy 
itself. The objection, therefore, has no force, 
except when extempore prayer is excluded, or 
confined within too narrow a limit. 

On the other hand, the indiscriminate advo- 
cates of liturgies have carried their objections 
to extempore prayer to a very absurd extreme. 
Without a liturgy, the folly and enthusiasm of 
many, they say, is in danger of producing ex- 
'. travagant or impious addresses to God ; that a 
congregation is confused between their attention 
to the minister and their own devotion, being 
ignorant of each petition before they hear it ; 
and to this they add the laboring recollection or 
tumultuous delivery of many extempore speak- 
ers. The first and third of these objections can 
have force only where foolish, enthusiastic, and 
incompetent ministers are employed ; and so the 
evil, which can but rarely exist, is easily reme- 
\ died. The second objection lay as forcibly 
j against the inspired prayers of the Scriptures 
at the time they were first uttered, as against 
: extempore prayers now ; and it would lie against 
j the use of the collects, and occasional unfamiliar 
forms of prayer introduced into the regular 
liturgy, in the case of all who are not able to 
read, or who happen not to have prayer-books. 
j We may also observe, that if evils of so serious 
a kind are the necessary results of extempore 
| praying ; if devotion is hindered, and pain and 
confusion of mind produced, and impiety and 
enthusiasm promoted ; it is rather singular that 
; extempore prayer should have been so constantly 
! practiced in the primitive Church, and that it 
should not have been wholly prohibited to the 
clergy on all occasions in later times. The 
facts, however, of our own age prove that there 
is, to say the least, an equal degree of devotion, 
an equal absence of confusednese ©f thought in 
the worshippers, where no liturgy is u>e..l. M 
where extempore prayer is unknown. Instances 
of folly and enthusiasm are also but lew in the 
ministry of such Churches ; and when they 
occur, they have a better remedy than euti 
to exclude extempore prayers bj liturgies, and 

thus to shut out the great benefits of that mode 



644 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART III. 



of worship, for the loss of which no exclusive 
form of service can atone. 

The whole, we think, comes to this — that there 
are advantages in each mode of worship ; and 
that, when combined prudently, the public ser- 
vice of the sanctuary has its most perfect con- 
stitution. Much, however, in the practice of 
Churches is to be regulated by due respect to 
differences of opinion, and even to prejudice, 
on a point upon which we are left at liberty 
by the Scriptures, and which must, therefore, 
be ranked among things prudential. Here, 
as in many other things, Christians must give 
place to each other, and do all things "with 
charity." 

Praise and thanksgiving are implied in 
prayer, and included, indeed, in our definition 
of that duty, as given above. But beside those 
ascriptions of praise and expressions of grati- 
tude which are to be mingled with the precatory 
part of our devotions, solemn psalms and hymns 
of praise, to be sung with the voice, and accom- 
panied with the melody of the heart, are of 
apostolic injunction, and form an important and 
exhilarating part of the worship of God, whether 
public or social. It is thus that God is publicly 
acknowledged as the great source of all good, 
and the end to which all good ought again to 
tend in love and obedience ; and the practice of 
stirring up our hearts to a thankful remembrance 
of his goodness, is equally important in its 
moral influence upon our feelings now, and as it 
tends to prepare us for our eternal enjoyment 
hereafter. "Prayer," says a divine of the Eng- 
lish Church, "awakens in us a sorrowful sense 
of wants and imperfections, and confession in- 
duces a sad remembrance of our guilt and mis- 
carriages ; but thanksgiving has nothing in it 
but a warm sense of the mightiest love, and the 
most endearing goodness, as it is the overflow of 
a heart full of love, the free sally and emission 
of soul, that is captivated and endeared by kind- 
ness. To laud and magnify the Lord is the end 
for which we were born, and the heaven for 
which we were designed ; and when we are ar- 
rived to such a vigorous sense of Divine love as 
the blessed inhabitants of heaven have attained, 
we shall need no other pleasure or enjoyment to 
make us for ever happy, but only to sing eternal 
praises to God and the Lamb : the vigorous 
relish of whose unspeakable goodness to us will 
so inflame our love, and animate our gratitude, 
that to eternal ages we shall never be able to 
refrain from breaking out into new songs of 
praise, and then every new song will create a 
new pleasure, and every new pleasure create a 
new song." — Dr. Scott. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD — THE LORD'S DAY, 

As we have just been treating of the public 
worship of Almighty God, so we may fitly add 
some remarks upon the consecration of one day 
in seven for that service, that it may be longer 
continued than on days in which the business of 
life calls for our exertions, and our minds be 
kept free from its distractions. 

The obligation of a Sabbatical institution upon 
Christians, as well as the extent of it, have been 
the subjects of much controversy. Christian 
Churches themselves have differed ; and the 
theologians of the same Church. Much has been 
written upon the subject on each side, and much 
research and learning employed sometimes to 
darken a very plain subject. 

The circumstance that the observance of a 
Sabbath is nowhere, in so many words, enjoined 
upon Christians by our Lord and his apostles, 
has been assumed as the reason for so great a 
license of criticism and argument as that which 
has been often indulged in to unsettle the strict- 
ness of the obligation of this duty. Its obliga- 
tion has been represented as standing upon the 
ground of inference only, and, therefore, of hu- 
man opinion ; and thus the opinion against 
Sabbatical institutions has been held up as 
equally weighty with the opinion in their favor ; 
and the liberty which has been claimed has 
been too often hastily concluded to be Christian 
liberty. This, however, is travelling much too 
fast ; for if the case were as much a matter of 
inference as such persons would have it, it does 
not follow that every inference is alike good; 
or that the opposing inferences have an equal 
force of truth, any more than of piety. 

The question respects the will of God as to 
this particular point — whether one day in seven 
is to be wholly devoted to religion, exclusive of 
worldly business and worldly pleasures ? Now, 
there are but two ways in which the will of God 
can be collected from his word : either by some 
explicit injunction upon all, or by incidental cir- 
cumstances. Let us, then, allow for a moment 
that we have no such explicit injunction ; yet 
we have certainly none to the contrary : let us 
allow that we have only for our guidance in in- 
ferring the will of God in this particular, certain 
circumstances declarative of his will ; yet this 
important conclusion is inevitable, that all such 
indicative circumstances are in favor of a Sab- 
batical institution, and that there is not one 
which exhibits any thing contrary to it. The 
seventh day was hallowed at the close of the 



CH. III.] 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



645 



creation ; its sanctity was afterward marked by 
the withholding of the manna on that day, and the 
provision of a double supply on the sixth, and 
that previous to the giving of the law from Sinai ; 
it was then made a part of that great epitome 
of religious and moral duty, which God wrote 
with his own finger on tables of stone ; it 
was a part of the public political law of the only 
people to whom Almighty God ever made him- 
self a political head and ruler ; its observance is 
connected throughout the prophetic age with 
the highest promises, its violations with the se- 
verest maledictions ; it was among the Jews, in 
our Lord's time, a day of solemn religious as- 
sembling, and was so observed by him ; when 
changed to the first day of the week, it was the 
day on which the first Christians assembled ; it 
was called, byway of eminence, "the Lord's 
day;" and we have inspired authority to say, 
that, both under the Old and New Testament 
dispensations, it is used as an expressive type of 
the heavenly and eternal rest. Now, against all 
these circumstances, so strongly declarative of 
the will of God as to the observance of a Sab- 
batical institution, what circumstance or passage 
of Scripture can be opposed as bearing upon it 
a contrary indication ? Truly not one — except 
those passages in St. Paul in which he speaks of 
Jewish Sabbaths, with their Levitical rites, and 
of a distinction of days, both of which marked 
a weak or a criminal adherence to the abolished 
ceremonial dispensation ; but which touch not 
the Sabbath as a branch of the moral law, or as 
it was changed, by the authority of the apostles, 
to the first day of the week. 

If, then, we were left to determine the point 
by inference merely, how powerful is the infer- 
ence as to what is the will of God with respect 
to the keeping of the Sabbath on the one hand, 
and how totally unsupported is the opposite in- 
ference on the other ! 

It may also be observed, that those who will 
so strenuously insist upon the absence of an ex- 
press command as to the Sabbath in the writings 
of the evangelists and apostles, as explicit as 
that of the decalogue, assume that the will of 
God is only obligatory when manifested in some 
one mode, which they judge to be most fit. But 
this is a monstrous hypothesis ; for however the 
will of God may be manifested, if it is with such 
clearness as to exclude all reasonable doubt, it 
is equally obligatory as when it assumes the for- 
mality of legal promulgation. Thus the Bible is 
not all in the form of express and authoritative 
command : it teaches by examples, by proverbs, 
by songs, by incidental allusions and occur- 
rences ; and yet is, throughout, a manifestation 
of the will of God as to morals and religion in 



their various branches, and if disregarded, it 
will be so at every man's peril. 

But strong as this ground is, we quit it for a 
still stronger. It is wholly a mistake that the 
Sabbath, because not reenacted with the formal- 
ity of the decalogue, is not explicitly enjoined 
upon Christians, and that the testimony of Scrip- 
ture to such an injunction is not unequivocal 
and irrefragable. We shall soon prove that the 
Sabbath was appointed at the creation of the 
world, and consequently for all men, and there- 
fore for Christians — since there was never any 
repeal of the original institution. To this we 
add, that if the moral law be the law of Christ- 
ians, then is the Sabbath as explicitly enjoined 
upon them as upon the Jews. But that the 
moral law is our law, as well as the law of the 
Jews, all but Antinomians must acknowledge ; 
and few, we suppose, will be inclined to run into 
the fearful mazes of Antinomianism in order to 
support lax notions as to the obligation of the Sab- 
bath, into which, however, they must be plunged 
if they deny the law of the decalogue to be 
binding upon us. That it is so bound upon us, 
a few passages of Scripture will prove as well as 
many. 

Our Lord declares that he came not to destroy 
the law and the prophets, but to fulfil. Take it 
that by the "law" he meant both the moral and 
the ceremonial, ceremonial law could only be 
fulfilled in him by realizing its types, and moral 
law by upholding its authority. For "the pro- 
phets," they admit of a similar distinction: they 
either enjoin morality, or utter prophecies of 
Christ, the latter of which were fulfilled in the 
sense of accomplishment, the former by being 
sanctioned and enforced. That the observance 
of the Sabbath is a part of the moral law is 
clear from its being found in the decalogue, the 
doctrine of which our Lord sums up in the moral 
duties of loving God and our neighbor ; and for 
this reason the injunctions of the prophets, on 
the subject of the Sabbath, are to be regarded 
as a part of their moral teaching. (S«e this 
stated more at large, part iii., chap, i.) Some 
divines have, it is true, called the observance of 
the Sabbath a positive and not a moral precept. 
If it were so, its obligation is precisely the same, 
in all cases where God himself has not relaxed 
it; and if a positive precept only, it has surely 
a special eminence given to it, by being placed 
in the list of the ten commandments, and being 
capable, with them, of an epitome which resolves 
them into the love of God and our neighbor. 
(Seochap. xviii., p. 302.) The truth seems to be, 
that it is a mixed precept, and not wholly positive: 
but intimately, perhaps essentially, connected 
with several moral principles, of homage to God 



646 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part in. 



and mercy to men ; with the obligation of reli- 
gious worship, of public religious worship, and of 
undistracted public worship ; and this will account 
for its collocation in the decalogue with the high- 
est duties of religion, and the leading rules of 
personal and social morality. 

The passage from our Lord's sermon on the 
mount, with its context, is a sufficiently explicit 
enforcement of the moral law, generally, upon 
his followers ; but when he says, " The Sabbath 
was made for man," he clearly refers to its ori- 
ginal institution, as a universal law, and not to 
its obligation upon the Jews only, in consequence 
of the enactments of the law of Moses. It "was 
made for man," not as he may be a Jew or a 
Christian ; but as man, a creature bound to love, 
worship, and obey his God and Maker, and on 
his trial for eternity. 

Another explicit proof that the law of the ten 
commandments, and, consequently, the law of 
the Sabbath, is obligatory upon Christians, is 
found in the answer of the apostle to an objec- 
tion to the docrine of justification by faith, Rom. 
iii. 31, "Do we then make void the law through 
faith ?" which is equivalent to asking, Does 
Christianity teach that the law is no longer 
obligatory on Christians, because it teaches that 
no man can be justified by it ? To this he 
answers in the most solemn form of expression, 
" God forbid : yea, we establish the law." Now, 
the sense in which the apostle uses the term, 
"the law," in this argument, is indubitably 
marked in chap. vii. 7: "I had not known sin 
but by the law ; for I had not known lust, except 
the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;" which 
being a plain reference to the tenth command of 
the decalogue, as plainly shows that the deca- 
logue is "the law" of which he speaks. This, 
then, is the law which is "established" by the 
gospel ; and this can mean nothing else than the 
establishment and confirmation of its authority, 
as the rule of all inward and outward holiness. 
Whoever, therefore, denies the obligation of the 
Sabbath on Christians, denies the obligation of 
the whole decalogue ; and there is no real medium 
between the acknowledgment of the Divine 
authority of this sacred institution, as a uni- 
versal law, and that gross corruption of Chris- 
tianity, generally designated Antinomianism. 

Nor is there any force in the dilemma into 
which the anti-Sabbatarians would push us when 
they argue that, if the case be so, then are we 
bound to the same circumstantial exactitude of 
obedience as to this command, as to the other 
precepts of the decalogue ; and, therefore, that 
we are bound to observe the seventh day, reckon- 
ing from Saturday, as the Sabbath day. But, as 
*he command is partly positive, and partly moral, 



it may have circumstances which are capable of 
being altered in perfect accordance with the 
moral principles on which it rests, and the moral 
ends which it proposes. Such circumstances 
are not indeed to be judged of on our own 
authority. We must either have such general 
principles for our guidance as have been revealed 
by God, and cannot, therefore, be questioned, or 
some special authority from which there can be 
no just appeal. Now, though there is not on 
record any Divine command issued to the apostles 
to change the Sabbath from the day on which it 
was held by the Jews to the first day of the 
week, yet, when we see that this was done in the 
apostolic age, and that St. Paul speaks of the 
Jewish Sabbaths as not being obligatory upon 
Christians, while he yet contends that the whole 
moral law is obligatory upon them, the fair 
inference is, that this change of the day was 
made by Divine direction. It is at least more 
than inference that the change was made under 
the sanction of inspired men; and those men 
the appointed rulers in the Church of Christ, 
whose business it was to " set all things in 
order" which pertained to its worship and moral 
government. We may rest well enough, there- 
fore, satisfied with this — that as a Sabbath is 
obligatory upon us, we act under apostolic 
authority for observing it on the first day of the 
week, and thus commemorate at once the crea- 
tion and the redemption of the world. 

Thus, even if it were conceded that the change 
of the day was made by the agreement of the 
apostles, without express directions from Christ, 
(which is not probable,) it is certain that it was 
not done without express authority confided to 
them by Christ; but it would not even follow 
from this change that they did in reality make 
any alteration in the law of the Sabbath, either 
as it stood at the time of its original institution 
at the close of the creation, or in the decalogue 
of Moses. The same portion of time which con- 
stituted the seventh day from the creation, could 
not be observed in all parts of the earth ; and it 
is not probable, therefore, that the original law 
expresses more than that a seventh day, or one 
day in seven, the seventh day after six days of 
labor, should be thus appropriated, from what- 
ever point the enumeration might set out, or the 
hebdomadal cycle begin. For if more had been 
intended, then it would have been necessary to 
establish a rule for the reckoning of days them- 
selves, which has been different in different 
nations ; some reckoning from evening to even- 
ing, as the Jews now do ; others from midnight 
to midnight, etc. : so that those persons in this 
country and in America who hold their Sabbath 
on Saturday, under the notion of exactly con- 



CH. III.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



647 



forming to the Old Testament, and yet calculate 
the days from midnight to midnight, have no 
assurance at all that they do not desecrate a part 
of the original Sabbath, which might begin, as 
the Jewish Sabbath now, on Friday evening, and, 
on the contrary, hallow a portion of a common 
day, by extending the Sabbath beyond Saturday 
evening. Even if this were ascertained, the 
differences of latitude and longitude would throw 
the whole into disorder ; and it is not probable 
that a universal law should have been fettered 
with that circumstantial exactness, which would 
have rendered difficult, and sometimes doubtful, 
astronomical calculations necessary, in order to 
its being obeyed according to the intention of 
the Lawgiver. Accordingly we find, says Mr. 
Holden, that 

"In the original institution it is stated in 
general terms that God blessed and sanctified 
the seventh day, which must undoubtedly imply 
the sanctity of every seventh day ; but not that 
it is to be subsequently reckoned from the first 
demiurgic day. Had this been included in the 
command of the Almighty, something, it is pro- 
bable, would have been added declaratory of the 
intention; whereas, expressions the most unde- 
fined are employed ; not a syllable is uttered con- 
cerning the order and number of days ; and it 
cannot reasonably be disputed that the command 
is truly obeyed by the separation of every seventh 
day from common to sacred purposes, at what- 
ever given time the cycle may commence. The 
difference in the mode of expression here from 
that which the sacred historian has used in the 
first chapter, is very remarkable. At the con- 
clusion of each division of the work of creation 
he says, ' The evening and the morning were the 
first day,' and so on; but at the termination of 
the whole, he merely calls it the seventh day : a 
diversity of phrase which, as it would be incon- 
sistent with every idea of inspiration to suppose 
it undesigned, must have been intended to denote 
a day, leaving it to each people as to what 
manner it is to be reckoned. The term obviously 
imports the period of the earth's rotation round 
its axis, while it is left undetermined whether it 
shall be counted from evening or morning, from 
noon or midnight. The terms of the law are, 
< Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 
Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work ; 
but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord 
thy God. — For in six days the Lord made heaven 
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and 
rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord 
blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.' With 
respect to time, it is here mentioned in the same 
indefinite manner us at its primeval institution, 
nothing more being expressly required thau to 



observe a day of sacred rest after every six 
days of labor. The seventh day is to be kept 
holy ; but not a word is said as to what epoch 
the commencement of the series is to be referred; 
nor could the Hebrews have determined from the 
decalogue what day of the week was to be kept 
as their Sabbath. The precept is not, Remember 
the seventh day of the week, to keep it holy, 
but, 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it 
holy;' and in the following explication of these 
expressions, it is not said that the seventh day 
of the week is the Sabbath, but, without restric- 
tion, ' The seventh day is the Sabbath of the 
Lord thy God : ' not the seventh according to any 
particular method of computing the septenary 
cycle, but, in reference to the six before men- 
tioned, every seventh day in rotation after six of 
labor." — Holden on the Sabbath. 

Thus that part of the Jewish law, the deca- 
logue, which, on the authority of the New Testa- 
ment, we have shown to be obligatory upon 
Christians, leaves the computation of the heb- 
domadal cycle undetermined ; and, after six days 
of labor, enjoins the seventh as the Sabbath, to 
which the Christian practice as exactly conforms 
as the Jewish. It is not, however, left to every 
individual to determine which day should be his 
Sabbath, though he should fulfil the law so far 
as to abstract the seventh part of his time from 
labor. It was ordained for worship, for public 
worship ; and it is, therefore, necessary that the 
Sabbath should be uniformly observed by a 
whole community at the same time. The Divine 
Legislator of the Jews interposed for this end 
by special direction as to his people. The first 
Sabbath kept in the wilderness was calculated 
from the first day in which the manna fell, and 
with no apparent reference to the creation of the 
world. By apostolic authority, it is now fixed 
to be held on the first day of the week ; and thus 
one of the great ends for which it was established, 
that it should be a day of " holy convocation," 
is secured. 

The above observations proceed upon the 
ground that the Sabbath, according to the fair 
interpretation of the words of Moses, was insti- 
tuted upon the creation of the world. But we 
have had divines of considerable eminence in the 
English Church who have attempted to disprovo 
this. The reason of the zeal displayed by 
some of them on this question may be easily 
explained. 

All the Churches of the Reformation did not 
indeed agree in their views of the Sabbath ; but 
the reformers of England and Scotland generally 
adopted the strict and scriptural viow ; and after 
them the Puritans. The opponents of the Puri- 
tans, in their controversies with them, and espe- 



648 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART in. 



dally after the Restoration, associated a strict 
observance of the Sabbath with hypocrisy and 
disaffection; and no small degree of ingenuity 
and learning "was employed to prove that, in the 
intervals of public worship, pleasure or business 
might be lawfully pursued, and that this Chris- 
tian festival stands on entirely different grounds 
from that of the Jewish Sabbath. The appoint- 
ment of a Sabbath for man at the close of the 
creation was unfriendly to this notion ; and an 
effort, therefore, was made to explain away the 
testimony of Moses in the book of Genesis, by 
alleging that the Sabbath is there mentioned by 
prolepsis, or anticipation. Of the arguments of 
this class of divines Paley availed himself in his 
"Moral Philosophy," and has become the most 
popular authority on this side of the question. 

Paley' s argument is well summed up, and 
satisfactorily answered, in the able work which 
has been above quoted. 

•'■Among those who have held that the Penta- 
teuchal record, above cited, is proleptical, and 
that the Sabbath is to be considered a part of 
the peculiar laws of the Jewish polity, no one 
has displayed more ability than Dr. Paley. 
Others on the same side have exhibited far more 
extensive learning, and have exercised much 
more patient research ; but for acuteness of in- 
tellect, for coolness of judgment, and a habit of 
perspicacious reasoning, he has been rarely, if 
ever, excelled. The arguments which he has 
approved must be allowed to be the chief strength 
of the cause ; and, as he is at once the most 
judicious and most popular of its advocates, all 
that he has advanced demands a careful and 
candid examination. The doctrine which he 
maintains is. that the Sabbath was not instituted 
at the creation ; that it was designed for the Jews 
only; that the assembling upon the first day of 
the week for the purpose of public worship, is a 
law of Christianity, of Divine appointment ; but 
that the resting on it longer than is necessary for 
attendance on these assemblies is an ordinance 
of human institution ; binding, nevertheless, upon 
the conscience of every individual of a country 
in which a weekly Sabbath is established, for the 
sake of the beneficial purposes which the public 
and regular observance of it promotes, and re- 
commended, perhaps, in some degree, to the 
Divine approbation by the resemblance it bears 
to what God was pleased to make a solemn part 
of the law which he delivered to the people of 
Israel, and by its subserviency to many of the 
same uses. Such is the doctrine of this very 
able writer in his Moral and Political Philosophy ; 
a doctrine which places the Sabbath on the foot- 
ing of civil laws, recommended by their expedi- 
ency, and which, being sanctioned by so high an 



authority, has probably given great encourage- 
ment to the lax notions concerning the Sabbath 
which unhappily prevail. 

"Dr. Paley's principal argument is, that the 

first institution of the Sabbath took place during 

the sojourning of the Jews in the wilderness. 

Upon the complaint of the people for want of 

• food, God was pleased to provide for their relief 

; by a miraculous supply of manna, which was 

' found every morning upon the ground about the 

camp : 'And they gathered it every morning, 

every man according to his eating ; and when the 

sun waxed hot, it melted. And it came to pass 

| that on the sixth day they gathered twice as 

much bread, two omers for one man : and all the 

\ rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 

| And he said unto them. This is that which the 

\ Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy 

\ Sabbath unto the Lord : bake that which ye will 

■■ bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe ; and 

'■ that which remaineth over lay up for you, to be 

j kept until the morning. And they laid it up till 

: the morning, as Moses bade ; and it did not stink, 

[as it had done before, when some of them left 

it till the morning,] neither was there any worm 

therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day ; for 

to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord : to-day ye shall 

not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather 

1 it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, 

in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, 

that there went out some of the people on the 

seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 

And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse 

: ye to keep my commandments and my laws ? 

, See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, 

' therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the 

bread of two days : abide ye every man in his 

place : let no man go out of his place on the 

seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh 

day.' 

" From this passage, Dr. Paley infers that the 
Sabbath was first instituted in the wilderness ; 
but to preclude the possibility of misrepresenting 
his argument, I will quote his own words : ' Now, 
in my opinion, the transaction in the wilderness 
above recited was the first actual institution of 
the Sabbath. For if the Sabbath had been in- 
stituted at the time of the creation, as the word3 
in Genesis may seem at first sight to import ; 
and if it had been observed all along from that 
time to the departure of the Jews out of Egypt, 
a period of about two thousand five hundred 
vears, it appears unaccountable that no mention 
of it, no occasion of even the obscurest allusion 
to it, should occur, either in the general history 
of the world before the call of Abraham, which 
contains, we admit, only a few memoirs of its 
early ages, and those extremely abridged; or, 



CH. III.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY 



649 



which is more to be wondered at, in that of the 
lives of the first three Jewish patriarchs, which, 
in many parts of the account, is sufficiently cir- 
cumstantial and domestic. Nor is there, in the 
passage above quoted from the sixteenth chapter 
of Exodus, any intimation that the Sabbath, 
when appointed to be observed, was only the re- 
vival of an ancient institution, which had been 
Deglected, forgotten, or suspended; nor is any 
such neglect imputed either to the inhabitants 
of the old world, or to any part of the family of 
Noah ; nor, lastly, is any permission recorded to 
dispense with the institution during the captivity 
of the Jews in Egypt, or on any other public 
emergency.' 

"As to the first part of this reasoning, if it 
were granted that in the history of the patriar- 
chal ages no mention is made of the Sabbath, nor 
even the obscurest allusion to it, it would be un- 
fair to conclude that it was not appointed pre- 
vious to the departure of the children of Israel 
from Egypt. If instituted at the creation, the 
memory of it might have been forgotten in the 
lapse of time and the growing corruption of the 
world ; or, what is more probable, it might have 
been observed by the patriarchs, though no men- 
tion is made of it in the narrative of their lives, 
which, however circumstantial in some particu- 
lars, .is, upon the whole, very brief and compen- 
dious. There are omissions in the sacred history 
much more extraordinary. Excepting Jacob's 
supplication at Bethel, scarcely a single allusion 
to prayer is to be found in all the Pentateuch ; 
yet, considering the eminent piety of the worthies 
recorded in it, we cannot doubt the frequency of 
their devotional exercises. Circumcision being 
the sign of God's covenant with Abraham, was 
beyond all question punctually observed by the 
Israelites ; yet, from their settlement in Canaan, 
no particular instance is recorded of it till the 
circumcision of Christ, comprehending a period 
of about one thousand five hundred years. No 
express mention of the Sabbath occurs in the 
books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the first and 
second of Samuel, or the first of Kings, though 
it was, doubtless, regularly observed all the time 
included in these histories. In the second book 
of Kings, and the first and second of Chronicles, 
it is mentioned only twelve times, and some of 
them are merely repetitions of the same instance. 
If the Sabbath is so seldom spoken of in this 
long historical series, it can be nothing wonder- 
ful if it should not be mentioned in the summary 
account of the patriarchal ages. 

"But though the- Sabbath is not expressly 
mentioned in the history of the antediluvian and 
patriarchal ages, the observance of it seems to 
be intimated by the division of time into weeks. 



In relating the catastrophe of the flood, the his- 
torian informs us that Noah, at the end of forty 
days, opened the window of the ark ; ' and he 
stayed yet other seven days, and again he sent 
forth the dove out of the ark ; and the dove came 
in to him in the evening, and, lo, in her mouth 
was an olive leaf, plucked off. So Noah knew 
that the waters were abated from off the earth. 
And he stayed yet other seven days, and sent 
forth the dove, which returned not again unto 
him any more.' The term 'week' is used by 
Laban in reference to the nuptials of Leah, when 
he says, ' Fulfil her week, and we will give thee 
this also, for the service which thou shalt serve 
with me yet seven other years.' A week of days 
is here plainly signified, the same portion of time 
which, in succeeding ages, was set apart for 
nuptial festivities ; as appears from the book of 
Esther, where the marriage feast of Vashti lasted 
seven days, and more particularly from the ac- 
count of Samson's marriage feast. Joseph and 
his brethren mourned for their father Jacob 
seven days. 

" That the computation of time by weeks ob- 
tained from the most remote antiquity, appears 
from the traditionary and written records of all 
nations, the numerous and undeniable testimonies 
of which have been so often collected and dis- 
played, that it would be worse than useless to 
repeat them. 

" Combining all these testimonies together, 
they fully establish the primitive custom of 
measuring time by the division of weeks ; and 
prevailing as it did among nations separated by 
distance, having no mutual intercourse, and 
wholly distinct in manners, it must have origi- 
nated from one common source, which cannot 
reasonably be supposed any other than the mem- 
ory of the creation preserved in the Noahic 
family, and handed down to their posterities. 
The computation by days, months, and years, 
arises from obvious causes, the revolution of the 
moon, and the annual and diurnal revolutions of 
the sun ; but the division of time by periods of 
seven days has no foundation in any natural or 
visible septenary change : it must, therefore, have 
originated from some positive appointment, or 
some tradition anterior to the dispersion of man- 
kind, which cannot well be any other than the 
memory of the creation and primeval blessing 
of the seventh day. 

"Dr. Paley's next argument is, that 'there is 
not in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus any inti- 
mation that the Sabbath, when appointed to be 
observed, was only the revival of an ancient in- 
stitution, which had been aeglected, forgotten, or 
suspended.' The contrary, however, seems the 
moro natural inference from the narrative. It is 



650 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



mentioned exactly in the way a historian -would 
"who had occasion to speak of a well-known insti- 
tution. For instance, when the people were as- 
tonished at the double supply of manna on the 
sixth day, Moses observes, ' This is that which 
the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the 
holy Sabbath unto the Lord ;' which, as far as we 
know, was never said previously to this transac- 
tion, but at the close of the creation. This, 
surely, is the language of a man referring to a 
matter with which the people were already ac- 
quainted, and recalling it to their remembrance. 
In the fifth verse, God promises on the sixth day 
twice as much as they gather daily. For this no 
reason is given, which seems to imply that it was 
already known to the children of Israel. Such 
a promise, without some cause being assigned 
for so extraordinary a circumstance, would have 
been strange indeed ; and if the reason had been 
that the seventh day was now for the first time 
to be appointed a festival, in which no work was 
to be done, would not the author have stated this 
circumstance ? Again, it is said, ' Six days ye 
shall gather it ; but on the seventh day, which is 
the Sabbath, in it there shall be none;' and 'for 
that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, there- 
fore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of 
two days.' Here the Sabbath is spoken of as an 
ordinance with which the people were familiar. 
A double quantity of manna was given on the 
sixth day, because the following day, as they well 
knew, was the Sabbath in which God rested from 
his work, and which was to be kept as a day of 
rest, and holy to the Lord. It is likewise men- 
tioned incidentally, as it were, in the recital of 
the miraculous supply of manna, without any 
notice of its being enjoined upon that occasion 
for the first time ; which would be a very sur- 
prising circumstance, had it been the original 
establishment of the Sabbath. In short, the en- 
tire phraseology in the account of this remark- 
able transaction accords with the supposition, 
and with it alone, that the Sabbath had been long 
established, and was well known to the Israelites. 
" That no neglect of the Sabbath is ' imputed 
either to the inhabitants of the old world, or to 
any of the family of Noah,' is very true ; but, so 
far from there being any proof of such negli- 
gence, there is, on the contrary, as we have seen, 
much reason for believing that it was duly ob- 
served by the pious Sethites of the old world, 
and, after the deluge, by the virtuous line of 
Shem. True, likewise, it is, that there is not 
' any permission recorded to dispense with the 
institution during the captivity of the Jews in 
Egypt, or on any other public emergency.' But 
where is the evidence that such a permission 
would be consistent with the Divine wisdom? 



[PART m. 



And if not, none such would either be given or 
recorded. At any rate, it is difficult to see how 
the silence of Scripture concerning such a cir- 
cumstance can furnish an argument in vindica- 
tion of the opinion that the Sabbath was first 
appointed in the wilderness. To allege it for 
this purpose is just as inconclusive as it would 
be to argue that the Sabbath was instituted sub- 
sequent to the return of the Jews from Baby- 
lonia, because neither the observance of it, nor 
any permission to dispense with it, during the 
captivity, is recorded in Scripture. 

"The passage in the second chapter of Gen- 
esis is next adduced by Dr. Paley, and he pro- 
nounces it not inconsistent with his opinion : ' For 
; as the seventh day was erected into a Sabbath, 
on account of God's resting uptfn that day from 
; the work of creation, it was natural enough in 
the historian, when he had related the history of 
: the creation, and of God's ceasing from it on the 
seventh day, to add, "And God blessed the seventh 
\ day, and sanctified it, because that on it he had 
rested from all his work which God had created 
, and made ;" although the blessing and sanctifica- 
, tion, that is, the religious distinction and appro- 
: priation of that day, were not actually made till 
; many ages afterward. The words do not assert 
, that God then "blessed" and "sanctified" the 
; seventh day, but that he blessed and sanctified it 
I for that reason ; and if any ask why the Sabbath, 
j or sanctification of the seventh day, was then 
mentioned, if it were not then appointed, the an- 
swer is at hand, The order of connection, and not 
of time, introduced the mention of the Sabbath 
in the history of the subject which it was or- 
, dained to commemorate.' 

" That the Hebrew historian, in the passage 
i here referred to, uses a prolepsis or anticipation, 
j and alludes to the Alosaical institution of the 
: Sabbath, is maintained by some of the ancient 
| fathers, by Wsehner, Heidegger, Beausobre, by 
Le Clerc, Rosenmuller, Geddes, Dawson, and 
j other commentators, and by the general stream 
j of those writers who regard the Sabbath as pe- 
| culiar to the Jews. Yet this opinion is built upon 
j the assumption that the book of Genesis was not 
written till after the giving of the law, which 
may be the fact, but of which most unquestion- 
I ably there is no proof. But waiving this con- 
| sideration, it is scarcely possible to conceive a 
greater violence to the sacred text than is offered 
by this interpretation. It attributes to the in- 
spired author the absurd assertion that God 
j rested on the seventh day from all his works 
which he had made, and therefore about two 
; thousand five hundred years after, God blessed 
■ and sanctified the seventh day. It may be as 
! well imagined that God had finished his work on 



CH. III.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



G51 



the seventh day, but rested on some other seventh 
day, as that he rested the day following the work 
of creation, and afterward blessed and sanctified 
another. Not the slightest evidence appears for 
believing that Moses followed ' the order of con- 
nection, and not of time,' for no reasonable mo- 
tive can be assigned for then introducing the men- 
tion of it, if it was not then appointed. The 
design of the sacred historian clearly is, to give 
a faithful account of the origin of the world ; 
and both the resting on the seventh day, and the 
blessing it, have too close a connection to be se- 
parated : if the one took place immediately after 
the work of creation was concluded, so did the 
other. To the account of the production of the 
universe, the whole narrative is confined ; there 
is no intimation of subsequent events, nor the 
most distant allusion to Jewish ceremonies ; and 
it would be most astonishing if the writer de- 
serted his grand object to mention one of the 
Hebrew ordinances which was not appointed till 
ages afterward. 

" But according to Dr. Geddes, the opinion of 
a prolepsis derives some confirmation from the 
original Hebrew, which he renders, ' On the sixth 
day God completed all the work which he had to 
do ; and on the seventh day, ceased from doing 
any of his works. God, therefore, blessed the 
seventh day, and made it holy, because on it he 
ceased from all his works, which he had ordained 
to do.' This version, he says, is 'in the suppo- 
sition that the writer refers to the Jewish Sab- 
bath:' of course it was designedly adapted to a 
hypothesis ; but, notwithstanding this suspicious 
circumstance, it is not easy to determine how it 
differs in sense from the received translation, as 
it leaves the question entirely undecided when 
this blessing and sanctification took place. The 
proposed version, however, is opposed by those 
in the Polyglot, and by the generality of trans- 
lators, who render the particle vau at the begin- 
ning of the third verse as a copulative, not as 
an illative ; and it is surprising how a sound He- 
brew scholar can translate it otherwise. In short, 
nothing can be more violent and unnatural than 
the proleptical interpretation; and if we add, 
that it rests upon the unproved assumption that 
the record in question was written after the de- 
livery of the law, it must appear so devoid of 
critical support, as not to require a moment's 
hesitation in rejecting it." — Holden on the Sab- 
bath. 

So satisfactorily does it appear that the insti- 
tution of the Sabbath is historically narrated in 
Genesis ; and it follows from thence that the law 
of the Sabbath is universal, and not peculiar to 
the Jews. God blessed and sanctified it, not cer- 
tainly for himself, but for his creatures; that it 



might be a day of special blessing to them, and 
be set apart, not only from unholy acts, for they 
are forbidden on every day, but from common 
uses. It was thus stamped with a hallowed char- 
acter from the commencement, and in works of a 
hallowed character ought it therefore to be em- 
ployed. 

The obligation of a Sabbatical observance upon 
Christians being thus established, the inquiry 
which naturally follows is, In what manner is 
this great festival, at once so ancient and so ven- 
erable, and intended to commemorate events so 
illustrious and so important to mankind, to be 
celebrated ? Many have spoken of the difficulty 
of settling rules of this kind ; but this will ordi- 
narily vanish, if we consent to be guided fully 
by the principles of Scripture. 

We allow that it requires judgment, and pru- 
dence, and charity, and, above all, a mind well 
disposed to the spiritual employment of the Sab- 
bath, to make a right application of the law. 
But this is the case with other precepts also ; 
such, for instance, as the loving our neighbor as 
ourselves ; with respect to which we seldom hear 
any complaint of difficulty in the application. 
But even if some want of special direction 
should be felt, this can only affect minor details ; 
and probably the matter has been so left by the 
Lawgiver to "try us, and prove us, and to know 
what is in our heart." Something may have 
been reserved, in this case, for the exercise of 
spontaneous obedience ; for that generous con- 
struction of the precept which will be dictated 
by devotion and gratitude ; and for the operation 
of a feeling of indignant shame, that the only 
day which God has reserved to himself should 
be grudged to him, and trenched upon by every 
petty excuse of convenience, interest, or sloth, 
and pared down, and negotiated for, in the spirit 
of one who seeks to overreach another. Of this 
we may be assured, that he who is most anxious 
to find exceptions to the general rule, will, in 
most cases, be a defaulter upon even his own esti- 
mate of the general duty. 

The only real difficulties with which men have 
entangled themselves, have arisen from the want 
of clear and decided views of the law of the Sab- 
bath as it is a matter of express revelation. 
There are two extremes, either of which must be 
fertile of perplexity. The first is, to regard the 
Sabbath as a prudential institution, adopted by 
the primitive Church, and resting upon civil and 
ecclesiastical authority; a notion which has been 
above refuted. For if this theory bo adopted, it 
is impossible to find satisfactory rules, either in 
the Old or New Testament, applicable to the sub- 
ject; and we may therefore cease to Wonder at 
that variety of opinions, and those vacillations 



652 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PAET HI. 



between duty and license, which have been found 
in different Churches, and among their theologi- 
cal writers. The difficulty of establishing any 
rule at all, to which conscience is strictly amen- 
able, is then evident, and indeed entirely insuper- 
able ; and men in vain attempt to make a partial 
Sabbath by their own authority, when they reject 
"the day which the Lord hath made." If, on 
the other hand, a proper distinction is not pre- 
served between the moral law of the Jews, which 
reenacts the still more ancient institution of the 
Sabbath, (a law we have seen to be obligatory 
upon all Christians, to the end of time,) and the 
political and ceremonial law of that people, which 
contains particular rules as to the observance of 
the Sabbath — fixing both the day on which it 
was to be held, viz., the seventh of the week, and 
issuing certain prohibitions not applicable to all 
people ; which branch of the Mosaic law was 
brought to an end by Christ — difficulties will arise 
from this quarter. One difficulty will respect the 
day ; another the hour of the diurnal circle from 
which the Sabbath must commence. Other diffi- 
culties will arise from the inconvenience or im- 
possibility of accommodating the Judaical pre- 
cepts to countries and manners totally dissimilar; 
and others, from the degree of civil delinquency 
and punitiveness with which violations of the 
Sabbath ought to be marked in a Christian state. 
The kindling of fires, for instance, in their dwell- 
ings, was forbidden to the Jews ; but for extend- 
ing this to harsher climates there is no authority. 
This rule would make the Sabbath a day of bodily 
suffering, and, in some cases, of danger to health, 
which is inconsistent with that merciful and fes- 
tival character which the Sabbath was designed 
everywhere to bear. The same observation may 
apply to the cooking of victuals, which was also 
prohibited to the Jews by express command. To 
the gathering of sticks on the Sabbath the pen- 
alty of death was assigned, on one occasion, for 
reasons probably arising out of the theocratical 
government of the Jews ; but surely this is no 
precedent for making the violation of the Sabbath 
a capital crime in the code of a Christian country. 
Between the decalogue, and the political and 
ceremonial laws which followed, there is a marked 
distinction. They were given at two different 
times, and in a different manner ; and, above all, 
the former is referred to in the New Testament, 
as of perpetual obligation ; the other as peculiar, 
and as abolished by Christ. It does not follow, 
however, from this, that those precepts in the 
Levitical code which relate to the Sabbath are 
of no use to us. They show us how the general 
law was carried into its detail of application by 
the great Legislator, who condescended to be at 
once a civil and an ecclesiastical Governor of a 



chosen people ; and though they are not in all 
respects binding upon us, in their full form, they 
all embody general interpretations of the fourth 
command of the decalogue, to which, as far as 
they are applicable to a people otherwise circum- 
stanced, respect is reverently and devoutly to be 
had. The prohibition to buy and sell on the 
Sabbath is as applicable to us as to the Jews ; 
so is that against travelling on the Sabbath, 
except for purposes of religion, which was 
allowed to them also. If we may lawfully 
kindle fires in our dwellings, yet we may learn 
from the law peculiar to the Jews to keep do- 
mestic services under restraint ; if we may cook 
victuals for necessity and comfort, we are to be 
restrained from feasting ; if violations of the 
Sabbath are not to be made capital crimes by 
Christian governors, the enforcement of a decent 
external observance of the rest of the Sabbath 
is a lawful use of power, and a part of the duty 
of a Christian magistrate. 

But the rules by which the observance of the 
Sabbath is clearly explained, will be found in 
abundant copiousness and evidence in the origi- 
nal command; in the decalogue; in incidental 
passages of Scripture, which refer not so much 
to the political law of the Jews, as to the uni- 
versal .moral code ; and in the discourses and acts 
of Christ and his apostles : so that, independent 
of the Levitical code, we have abundant guid- 
ance. It is a day of rest from worldly pursuits — 
a day sanctified, that is, set apart for holy uses, 
which are the proper and the only lawful occu- 
pations of the day : it is a day of public wor- 
ship, or, as it is expressed in the Mosaic law, 
"of holy convocation," or assembly — a day for 
the exercise of mercy to man and beast — a day for 
the devout commemoration, by religious acts and 
meditations, of the creation and redemption of 
the world ; and, consequently, for the cultivation 
of that spirit which is suitable to such exercises, 
by laying aside all worldly cares and pleasures ; 
to which holy exercises there is to be a full ap- 
propriation of the seventh part of our time ; ne- 
cessary sleep, and engagements of real necessity, 
as explained by our Saviour, only being excluded. 

"Works of charity and mercy were not excluded 
by the rigor of the Mosaic law, much less by the 
Christian dispensation. The rule of doing good 
on the Sabbath day has, however, sometimes 
been interpreted with too much laxity, without 
considering that such acts form no part of the 
reason for which that day was sanctified, and that 
they are therefore to be grounded upon the 
necessity of immediate exertion. The secularity 
connected with certain public charities has often 
been pushed beyond this rule of necessity, and 
as such has become unlawful. 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



C53 



The reason generally given for this is, that 
men cannot be found to give time on the week 
day to the management of such charities ; and 
they will never be found, while the rule is 
brought down to convenience. Men's principles 
are to be raised, and not the command lowered. 
And when ministers perseveringly do their duty, 
and but a few conscientious persons support 
them, the whole will be found practicable and 
easy. Charities are pressed either upon our 
feelings or our interests, and sometimes on both ; 
and when they become really urgent, time will 
be found for their management, without "rob- 
bing God," and laying down that most debasing 
of all principles, that our sacrifices are to cost 
us nothing. The teaching of writing in Sunday- 
schools has been pleaded for on the same assumed 
ground of necessity; but in all well and reli- 
giously conducted institutions of this kind, it 
has been found quite practicable to accomplish 
the object in a lawful manner; and even if it 
had not, there was no obligation binding as to 
that practice, equal to that which binds us to obey 
the law of God. It is a work which comes not 
under any of our Lord's exceptions : it may be a 
benevolent thing ; but it has in it no character of 
mercy, either to the bodies or to the souls of men. 

As to amusements and recreations, which, 
when "innocent," that is, we suppose, not im- 
moral, are sometimes pleaded for, by persons 
who advocate the serious observance of the Lord's 
day, but a few words are necessary. If to pub- 
lic worship we are to add a more than ordinary 
attention to the duties of the family and the 
closet, which all such persons allow, then there 
is little time for recreation and amusement ; and 
if there were, the heart which is truly impressed 
with duties so sacred, and has entered into their 
spirit, can have no relish for them. Against 
every temptation of this kind, the words of the 
pious Archbishop Dawes may serve as a salutary 
admonition : 

"Dost thou require of me, Lord, but one 
day in seven for thy more especial service, when 
as all my times, all my days, are thy due tribute ; 
and shall I grudge thee that one day ? Have I 
but one day in the week, a peculiar season of 
nurturing and training up my soul for heavenly 
happiness, and shall I think the whole of this 
too much, and judge my duties at an end, when 
the public offices of the Church are only ended ? 
Ah ! where, in such a case, is my zeal, my sin- 
cerity, my constancy, and perseverance of holy 
obedience? Where my love unto, my delight 
and relish in, pious performances ? Would those 
that are thus but half Christians be content to 
be half saved ? Would those who are thus not 
far from the kingdom of heaven, be willing to be 



utterly excluded thence for arriving no nearer 
to a due observance of the Lord's day? Am I 
so afraid of sabbatizing with the Jews, that I 
carelessly omit keeping the day as a good Chris- 
tian ? Where can be the harm of overdoing in 
God's worship, suppose I could overdo ? But 
when my Saviour has told me, after I have done 
all, I am still an unprofitable servant, where is 
the hazard, where the possibility, of doing too 
much ; whereas in doing too little, in falling 
short of performing a due obedience on the Sab- 
bath, I may also fall short of eternal life ? " 



CHAPTER IV. 

MOBALS — DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 

When our duty to others is summed up in the 
general epitome of the second table, "Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," although 
love must be so taken as to include many other 
principles and acts, yet we are thereby taught 
the source from which they truly spring when 
performed evangelically, and also that universal 
charity is to be the habitual and reigning affec- 
tion of the heart, in all our relations to our fellow- 
creatures. 

This affection is to be considered in its source. 

That source is a regenerated state of mind. 
We have shown that the love of God springs from 
the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who are justi- 
fied by faith in Christ, and that every sentiment 
which, in any other circumstances, assumes this 
designation, is imperfect or simulated. We make 
the same remark as to the love of our neighbor. 
It is an imperfect or simulated sentiment, if it 
flow not from the love of God, the sure mark of a 
regenerate nature. We here also see the supe- 
rior character of Christian morals, and of morals 
when kept in connection, as they ought always 
to be, with the doctrines of the gospel, and their 
operation in the heart. There may, indeed, be a 
degree of natural benevolence ; the indirect in- 
fluence of a benevolent nature may counteract 
the selfish and the malevolent feelings; and 
education, when well directed, will come in to the 
aid of nature. Yet the principle, as a religious 
one, and in its full operation, can only result 
from a supernatural change of our nature, be- 
cause that only can subdue those affections -which 
counteract benevolenco and charity in their effi- 
cient and habitual manifestations. 

This affection is also to be considered in respect 
of what it EXCLUDES. 

It excludes all anger beyond that degree of 
resentment which a culpable action In another 



654 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



may call forth, in order to mark the sense we 
entertain of its evil, and to impress that evil 
upon the offender, so that we may lead him to 
repent of it and forsake it. This seems the 
proper rule by which to distinguish lawful anger 
from that which is contrary to charity, and there- 
fore malevolent and sinful. It excludes implaca- 
bility ; for if we do not promptly and generously 
forgive others their trespasses, this is deemed to 
be so great a violation of that law of love which 
ought to bind men together, that our Heavenly 
Father will not forgive us. It excludes all re- 
venge ; so that we are to exact no punishment 
of another for offences against ourselves ; and 
though it be lawful to call in the penalties of the 
laws for crimes against society, yet this is never 
to be done on the principle of private revenge ; 
but on the public ground that law and govern- 
ment are ordained of God, which produces a 
case that comes under the inspired rule: "Ven- 
geance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord." 
It excludes all prejudice ; by which is meant a 
harsh construction of men's motives and charac- 
ters upon surmise or partial knowledge of the 
facts, accompanied with an inclination to form 
an ill opinion of them in the absence of proper 
evidence. This appears to be what the Apostle 
Paul means when he says: "Charity thinketh 
no evil." It excludes all censoriousness or evil 
speaking, when the end is not the correction of 
the offender, or when a declaration of the truth 
as to one person is not required by our love and 
duty to another ; for whenever the end is merely 
to lower a person in the estimation of others, it 
is resolvable solely into a splenetic and immoral 
feeling. It excludes all those aggressions, whether 
petty or more weighty, which may be made upon 
the interests of another, when the law of the 
case, or even the abstract right, might not be 
against our claim. These are always complex 
cases, and can but occasionally occur ; but the 
rule which binds us to do unto others as we 
would they should do unto us, binds us to act 
upon the benevolent view of the case ; and to 
forego the rigidness of right, finally, it ex- 
cludes, as limitations to its exercise, all those 
artificial distinctions which have been created by 
men, or by providential arrangements, or by 
accidental circumstances. Men of all nations, 
of all colors, of all conditions, are the objects 
of the unlimited precept, "Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself." Kind feelings produced by 
natural instincts, by intercourse, by country, 
may call the love of our neighbor into warmer 
exercise as to individuals or classes of men, or 
these may be considered as distinct and special, 
though similar affections superadded to this 
universal charity ; but as to all men, this charity 



[PART m. 

is an efficient affection, excluding all ill-will, and 
all injury. 

But its active expression remains to be con- 
sidered. 

It is not a merely negative affection, but it 
brings forth rich and varied fruits. It produces 
a feeling of delight in the happiness of others, 
and thus destroys envy ; it is the source of sym- 
pathy and compassion ; it opens the hand in liber- 
ality for the supply of the wants of others ; it 
gives cheerfulness to every service undertaken in 

: the cause of others; it resists the wrong which 

! may be inflicted upon them ; and it will run haz- 
ards of health and life for their sakes. It has 
special respect to the spiritual interests and salva- 

I tion of men ; and thus it instructs, persuades, 
reproves the ignorant and vicious ; counsels the 
simple ; comforts the doubting and perplexed ; 
and rejoices in those gifts and graces of others, 

1 by which society may be enlightened and puri- 
fied. The zeal of apostles, the patience of mar- 
tyrs, the travels and labors of evangelists in the 
first ages, were all animated by this affection ; 
and the earnestness of preachers in all ages, and 
the more private labors of Christians for the 
benefit of the souls of men, with the operations 
of those voluntary associations which send forth 
missionaries to the heathen, or distribute Bibles 
and tracts, or conduct schools, are all its visible 
expressions before the world. A principle of 
philanthropy may be conceived to exist inde- 
pendent of the influence of active and efficient 
Christianity ; but it has always expended itself 
either in good wishes, or, at most, in feeble 
efforts, chiefly directed to the mitigation of a 
little temporary external evil. Except in con- 
nection with religion, and that the religion of 
the heart, wrought and maintained there by the 
acknowledged influences of the Holy Spirit, the 
love of mankind has never exhibited itself under 
such views and acts as those we have just re- 
ferred to. It has never been found in char- 
acters naturally selfish and obdurate ; has never 
disposed men to make great and painful sacri- 
fices for others ; never sympathized with spirit- 
ual wretchedness ; never been called forth into 
its highest exercises by considerations drawn 
from the immortal relations of man to eternity ; 
never originated large plans for the illumination 
and moral culture of society ; never fixed upon 
the grand object to which it is now bending the 
hearts, the interests, and hopes of the universal 
Church, the conversion of the world. Philan- 
thropy, in systems of mere ethics, like their 
love of God, is a greatly inferior principle to that 
which is enjoined by Christianity, and infused 
by its influence : another proof of the folly of 
separating morals from revealed truth, and of 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



655 



the necessity of cultivating them upon evangeli- 
cal principles. 

The same conclusion will be established, if we 
consider those works or mercy which the prin- 
ciple of universal philanthropy will dictate, and 
which form a large portion of our "duty to our 
neighbor." It is more the design of this part of 
the present work to exhibit the peculiar nature 
and perfection of the morals of Christianity, than 
to consider moral duties in detail ; and, there- 
fore, it is only necessary to assume what is ob- 
vious to all, that the exercise of practical mercy 
to the needy and miserable is a moral duty 
clearly revealed, including also the application 
of a part of our property to benefit mankind in 
other respects, as we have opportunity. But let 
us ask, under what rules can the quantum of our 
exertions in doing good to others be determined, 
except by the authority of revealed religion ? 
It is clear that there is an antagonistic principle 
of selfishness in man, which counteracts our 
charities ; and that the demands of personal 
gratification, and of family interests, and of 
show and expense in our modes of living, are 
apt to take up so large a share of what remains 
after our necessities, and the lawful demands of 
station, and a prudent provision for old age and 
for our families after our decease, are met, that 
a very small portion is wont to be considered as 
lawfully disposable, under all these considera- 
tions, for purposes of general beneficence. If 
we have no rules or principles, it is clear that 
the most limited efforts may pass for very me- 
ritorious acts ; or that they will be left to be 
measured only by the different degrees of natural 
compassion in man, or by some immoral princi- 
ple, such as the love of human praise. There 
is nothing in any mere system of morals to di- 
rect in such cases ; certainly nothing to compel 
either the principles or the heart. Here then we 
shall see also in how different a predicament this 
interesting branch of morality stands, when kept 
in close and inseparable connection with Chris- 
tianity. It is true that we have no specific rule 
as to the quantum of our givings in the Scrip- 
tures ; and the reason of this is not inapparent. 
Such a rule must have been branched out into 
an inconvenient number of detailed directions to 
meet every particular case: it must have re- 
spected the different and changing states of so- 
ciety and civilization; it must have controlled 
men's savings as well as givings, because the 
latter are dependent upon them ; it must have 
prescribed modes of dress, and modes of living: 
all which would have left cases still partially 
touched or wholly unprovided for, and the mul- 
tiplicity of rules might have been a trap to our 
consciences, rather than the means of directing 



them. There is also a more general reason for 
this omission. The exercise of mercy is a work 
of the affections ; it must have, therefore, some- 
thing free and spontaneous in it ; and it was de- 
signed to be voluntary, that the moral effect pro- 
duced upon society might be to bind men together 
in a softer bond, and to call forth reciprocally 
good affections. To this the stern character of 
particular laws would have been inimical. Chris- 
tianity teaches mercy, by general principles, 
which at once sufficiently direct and leave to the 
heart the free play of its affections. 

The general law is express and unequivocal : 
"As we have opportunity, let us do good unto all 
men, especially unto them who are of the house- 
hold of faith." "To do good and to communicate 
forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well 
pleased." A most important and influential 
principle, to be found in no mere system of ethics, 
is also contained in the revelation of a particular 
relation in which we all stand to God, and on 
which we must be judged at the last day. We 
are "stewards," "servants," to whom the great 
Master has committed his "goods," to be used 
according to his directions. We have nothing, 
therefore, of our own, no right in property, ex- 
cept under the conditions on which it is com- 
mitted to us ; and we must give an account for 
our use of it, according to the rule. A rule of 
proportion is also in various passages of Scrip- 
ture expressly laid down : Where little is given, 
little is required : where much is given, much is 
required. " For if there be first a willing mind, 
it is accepted according to that a man hath, and 
not according to that he hath not." It is a fur- 
ther rule, that our charities should be both cheer- 
ful and abundant. " See that ye abound in this 
grace also," "not grudgingly, or of necessity, 
for God loveth a cheerful giver." These general 
rules and principles being laid down, the appeal 
is made to the heart, and men are left to the in- 
fluence of the spiritual and grateful affections 
excited there. All the venerable examples of 
Scripture are brought to bear upon the free and 
liberal exercises of beneficence, crowned with 
the example of our Saviour : "Ye know the grace 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was 
rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that 
ye through his poverty might be rich." An 
appeal is made to man's gratitude for the bless- 
ings of Providence to himself, and he is enjoined 
to give "as the Lord hath prospered him." Our 
fellow-creatures are constantly presented to us 
under tender relations, as our "brethren;" or, 
more particularly, as "of the household of faith. - ' 
Special promises arc made of God'fl favor and 
blessing, as the reword of such aota in the pre- 
sent life: "And God is able to make all graoe 



656 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



abound toward you, that ye, always having all 
sufficiency in all things, may abound to every 
good work ;" and finally, although every notion 
of merit is excluded, yet the rewards of eternity 
are represented as to be graciously dispensed, so 
as specially to distinguish and honor every "work 
of faith," and "labor of love." Under so power- 
ful an authority, so explicit a general directory, 
and so effectual an excitement, is this branch of 
morality placed by the gospel. 

As our religion enjoins charity, so also it pre- 
scribes justice. As a mutual dependence has 
been established among men, so also there are 
mutual rights, in the rendering of which to each 
other, justice, when considered as a social virtue, 
consists. 

Various definitions and descriptions of justice 
are found among moralists and jurists, of differ- 
ent degrees of importance and utility to those 
who write, and to those who study, formal trea- 
tises on its collective or separate branches. The 
distribution of justice into ethical, economical, 
and political, is more suited to our purpose, and 
is sufficiently comprehensive. The first con- 
siders all mankind as on a level ; the second re- 
gards them as associated into families, under the 
several relations of husband and wife, parents 
and children, masters and servants ; and the 
third comprehends them as united into public 
states, and obliged to certain duties, either as 
magistrates or people. On all these the rules 
of conduct in Scripture are explicit and for- 
cible. 

Ethical justice, as it considers mankind as 
on a level, chiefly therefore respects what are 
usually called men's natural rights, which are 
briefly summed up in three — life, property, and 
liberty. 

The natural right to life is guarded by the pre- 
cept, " Thou shalt not kill ;" and it is also limited 
by the more ancient injunction to the sons of 
Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man 
shall his blood be shed." In a state of society, 
indeed, this right may be further limited by a 
government, and capital punishments be ex- 
tended to other crimes, (as we see in the Mosaic 
law,) provided the law be equally binding on all 
offenders, and rest upon the necessity of the 
case, as determined by the good of the whole 
community ; and also that in every country pro- 
fessing Christianity, the merciful as well as the 
righteous character of that religion be suffered 
to impress itself upon its legislation. But against 
all individual authority the life of man is abso- 
lutely secured ; and not only so, but anger, which 
is the first principle of violence, and which pro- 
ceeds first to malignity and revenge, and then to 
personal injuries, is prohibited, under the pen- 



[PART HI. 

alty of the Divine wrath ; a lofty proof of the 
superior character of the Christian rule of jus- 
tice. 

In property, lawfully acquired, that is, acquired 
without injury to others, every man has also a 
natural right. This right also may be restrained 
in society, without injustice, seeing it is but the 
price which every man pays for protection, and 
other advantages of the social state ; but here 
also the necessity of the case, resting upon the 
benefit of the community, is to be the rule of 
this modification of the natural claim. The law 
too must lie equally upon all, cceteris paribus ; 
and every individual whose right of property is 
thus interfered with must have his due share of 
the common advantage. Against individual ag- 
gression the right of property is secured by the 
Divine law, "Thou shalt not steal;" and by an- 
other law which carries the restraint up to the 
very principle of justice in the heart, " Thou 
shalt not covet ;" covetousness being that corrupt 
affection from which injuries done to others in 
their property arise. The Christian injunction, 
to be "content with such things as we have," is 
another important security. The rule which 
binds rulers and governments in their interfer- 
ences with this natural right of property, comes 
under the head of political justice. 

Liberty is another natural right, which by in- 
dividual authority, at least, cannot be interfered 
with. Hence "man-stealing," the object of which 
is to reduce another to slavery, by obtaining 
forcible possession of his person, and compelling 
his labor, is ranked with crimes of the greatest 
magnitude in the New Testament ; and against 
it the special vengeance of God is threatened. 
By the Jewish law, also, it was punished with 
death. How far the natural right which every 
man has to his own liberty may, like the natural 
right to property, be restrained by public au- 
thority, is a point on which different opinions 
have been held. Prisoners of war were for- 
merly considered to be absolute captives, the 
right of which claim is involved in the question 
of the right of war. Where one can be justified, 
so may the other ; since a surrender of the per- 
son in war is the commutation of liberty for life. 
In the more humane practice of modern warfare, 
an exchange of prisoners is effected ; but even 
this supposes an acquired right on each side in 
the prisoners, and a commutation by an exchange. 
Should the progeny of such prisoners of war, 
doomed, as by ancient custom, to perpetual ser- 
vitude, be also kept in slavery, and the purchase 
of slaves also be practiced, the question which 
then arises is one which tries the whole case of 
slavery, as far as public law is concerned. 
Among the patriarchs there was a mild species 



CH. IV.] 

of domestic servitude, distinct from that of cap- 
tives of war. Among the Jews, a Hebrew might 
be sold for debt, or sell himself when poor, but 
only till the year of release. After that, his 
continuation in a state of slavery was perfectly 
voluntary. The Jews might, however, hold for- 
eigners as slaves for life. Michaelis has well 
observed, that, by the restrictions of his law, 
Moses remarkably mitigated the rigors of slavery. 
" This is, as it were, the spirit of his laws re- 
specting it. He appears to have regarded it as 
a hardship, and to have disapproved of its seve- 
rities. Hence we find him, in Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, 
ordaining that no foreign servant, who sought 
for refuge among the Israelites, should be de- 
livered up to his master." [Commentaries on the 
Laivs of Moses. ) This view of the case, we may 
add, will probably afford the reason why slavery 
was at all allowed under the Jewish dispensation. 
The general state of society in the surrounding 
nations might perhaps render it a necessary evil; 
but in other countries it existed in forms harsh 
and oppressive, while the merciful nature of the 
Mosaic institute impresses upon it a mild and 
mitigated character, in recognition of man's na- 
tural rights, and as an example to other coun- 
tries. And to show how great a contrast with 
our modern colonial slavery the case of slaves 
among the Jews presented, we may remark, that 
all foreign slaves were circumcised, and there- 
fore initiated into the true religion ; that they 
had the full and strict advantage of the Sabbath 
confirmed to them by express statute ; that they 
had access to the solemn religious festivals of 
the Jews, and partook of the feasts made upon 
the offerings ; that they could possess property, 
as appears from Lev. xxv. 49, and 2 Sam. ix. 10 ; 
and that all the fruits which grew spontaneously 
during the Sabbatical year were given to them, 
and to the indigent. Michaelis has also shown, 
that not only was the ox not muzzled when tread- 
ing out the corn, but that the slaves and day- 
laborers might eat without restraint of the fruits 
they were gathering in their master's service, 
and drink of the wine they pressed from the 
wine-press. [Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 
art. 130.) The Jewish law may therefore be con- 
sidered not so much as controlling the natural 
right which man has to liberty, and so authoriz- 
ing the infraction of that right under certain cir- 
cumstances, but as coming in to regulate and to 
soften a state of things already existing, and 
grown into general practice. All, therefore, that 
can be fairly inferred from the existence of slav- 
ery under that law is, that a legislature, in 
certain cases, may be justified in mitigating, 
rather than abolishing, that evil. But even here, 
since the Legislator was in fact God, whose right 
42 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



657 



to dispose of his creatures cannot be questioned, 
and since also the nations neighboring to the 
Jews were under a malediction because of their 
idolatries, the Jewish law can be no rule to a 
Christian state ; and all arguments drawn from 
it in favor of perpetual slavery, suppose that a 
mere earthly legislature is invested with the 
powers and prerogatives of the Divine Legis- 
lator of the Jews, which of course vitiates the 
whole reasoning. 

As to the existence of slavery in Christian 
states, every government, as soon as it professes 
to be Christian, binds itself to be regulated 
by the principles of the New Testament ; and 
though a part of its subjects should at that time 
be in a state of servitude, and their sudden 
emancipation might be obviously an injury to 
society at large, it is bound to show that its 
spirit and tendency is as inimical to slavery as 
is the Christianity which it professes. All the 
injustice and oppression against which it can 
guard that condition, and all the mitigating 
regulations it can adopt, are obligatory upon it ; 
and since also every Christian slave is enjoined 
by apostolic authority to choose freedom, when 
it is possible to attain it, as being a better state, 
and more befitting a Christian man, so is every 
Christian master bound, by the principle of 
loving his neighbor, and more especially his 
"brother in Christ," as himself, to promote his 
passing into that better and more Christian state. 
To the instruction of the slaves in religion would 
every such Christian government also be bound, 
and still further to adopt measures for the final 
extinction of slavery; the rule of its proceeding 
in this case being the accomplishment of this 
object as soon as is compatible with the real 
welfare of the enslaved portion of its subjects 
themselves, and not the consideration of the 
losses which might be sustained by their propri- 
etors, which, however, ought to be compensated 
by other means, as far as they are just, and 
equitably estimated. 

If this be the mode of proceeding clearly 
pointed out by Christianity to a state on its first 
becoming Christian, when previously, and for 
ages, the practice of slavery had grown up with 
it, how much more forcibly does it impose its 
obligation upon nations involved in the guilt of 
the modern African slavery! They professed 
Christianity when they commenced the practice. 
They entered upon a traffic which ab initio was, 
upon their own principles, unjust and cruel. 
They had no rights of war to plead against the 
natural rights of the first captives ; who were 
in fact stolen, or purchased from the stealers, 
knowing them to be so. The governmonts them* 
selves novor acquired any right of property in 



658 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



the parents ; they have none in their descendants, 
and can acquire none ; as the thief "who steals 
cattle cannot, should he feed and defend them, 
acquire any right of property, either in them or 
the stock they may produce, although he should 
be at the charge of rearing them. These gov- 
ernments not having a right of property in their 
colonial slaves, could not transfer any right of 
property in them to their present masters, for it 
could not give what it never had; nor, by its 
connivance at the robberies and purchases of 
stolen human beings, alter the essential injustice 
of the transaction. All such governments are 
therefore clearly bound, as they fear God and 
dread his displeasure, to restore all their slaves 
to the condition of free men. Restoration to 
their friends and country is now out of the ques- 
tion : they are bound to protect them where they 
are, and have the right to exact their obedience 
to good laws in return ; but property in them 
they cannot obtain : their natural right to liberty 
is untouched and inviolable. The manner in 
which this right is to be restored, we grant, is in 
the power of such governments to determine, 
provided that proceeding be regulated by the 
principles above laid down : first, that the eman- 
cipation be sincerely determined upon, at some 
time future; secondly, that it be not delayed 
beyond the period which the general interest of the 
slaves themselves prescribes, and which is to be 
judged of benevolently, and without any bias of 
judgment, giving the advantage of every doubt 
to the injured party ; thirdly, that all possible 
means be adopted to render freedom a good to 
them. It is only under such circumstances that 
the continuance of slavery among us can cease 
to be a national sin, calling down, as it has done, 
and must do until a process of emancipation be 
honestly commenced, the just displeasure of God. 
What compensations may be justly claimed from 
the governments, that is, the public of those 
countries who have entangled themselves in this 
species of unjust dealing, by those who have 
purchased men and women whom no one had 
the right to sell, and no one had the right 
to buy, is a perfectly distinct question, and 
ought not to turn repentance and justice out of 
their course, or delay their operations for a 
moment. Perhaps, such is the unfruitful nature 
of all wrong, it may be found that, as free 
laborers, the slaves would be of equal or more 
value to those who employ them than at pre- 
sent. If otherwise, as in some degree "all 
have sinned," the real loss ought to be borne 
by all, when that loss is fairly and impartially 
ascertained ; but of which loss, the slave in- 
terest, if we may so call it, ought in justice to 



[part in. 

bear more than an equal share, as having had 
the greatest gain. 1 

The rules of Christian justice thus secure the 
three great natural rights of man; but it may 
be inquired whether he has himself the power of 
surrendering them at his own option ? 

And first with respect to life. 

Since government is an institution of God, it 
seems obligatory upon all men to live in a social 
state ; and if so, to each is conceded the right of 
putting his life to hazard, when called upon by 
his government to defend that state from domes- 
tic rebellion or foreign war. So also we have 
the power to hazard our lives to save a fellow- 
creature from perishing. In times of persecu- 
tion for religion, we are enjoined by our Lord to 
flee from one city to another ; but when flight 
is cut off, we have the power to surrender life 
rather than betray our allegiance to Christ. Ac- 
cording to the apostle's rule, "we ought to lay 
down our lives for the brethren ;" that is, for the 
Church and the cause of religion. In this case, 
and in some others, accompanied with danger to 
life, when a plain rule of duty is seen to be bind- 
ing upon us, we are not only at liberty to take 
the risk, but we are bound to do it ; since it is 
more our duty to obey God than to take care of 
our health and life. These instances of devotion 
have been by some writers called "suicides of 
duty;" a phrase which may well be dispensed 
with, although the sentiment implied in it is 
correct. 

On suicide, properly so called, that is, self- 
murder, our modern moralists have added little 
to what is advanced by the ethical writers of 
Greece and Rome, to prove its unlawfulness ; 
for, though suicide was much practiced in 
those ancient states, and sometimes commended, 
especially by the Stoics, it was occasionally con- 
demned. "We men," says Plato, "are all by 
the appointment of God in a certain prison or 
custody, which we ought not to break out of, 
or run away." So likewise Cicero: "God, the 
supreme governor of all things, forbids us to 
depart hence without his order. All pious men 
ought to have patience to continue in the body, 
as long as God shall please who sent us hither ; 
and not force themselves out of the world before 
he calls for them, lest they be found deserters of 
the station appointed them by God." 

This is the reasoning which has generally satis- 
fied our moralists on this subject, with the 
exception of some infidel sophists, and two or 



1 The benevolent principles inculcated here, and on pages 
662, 672, ought to be seriously regarded ; but some of the 
author's suggestions are obviously inapplicable to the ques- 
tion of slavery as it exists in the United States.— [Editor. 



CH IV.] 

three writers of paradoxes in the Established 
Church, who have defended suicide, or affected 
to do so. Paley has added some other consider- 
ations, drawn from his doctrine of general ten- 
dency, and from the duties which are deserted, 
the injuries brought upon others, etc. ; but the 
whole only shows that merely ethical reasoning 
furnishes but a feeble barrier against this offence 
against God, against society, and against our- 
selves, independent of the Holy Scriptures. There 
the prohibitions of a Divine law lie directly 
against this act, and also the whole spirit of that 
economy under which we are placed by Almighty 
God. 

It is very true that in the Old Testament his- 
tory we have a few instances of suicide among 
the Jews, which were not marked by any penal 
visitation, as among modern nations, upon the 
remains of the deceased — such as the denial of 
honorable sepulture, etc. But this arose from 
the absence of all penalty in such cases in the 
Mosaic law. In this there was great reason; 
for the subject himself is by his own direful act 
put beyond the reach of human visitation ; and 
every dishonor done to the inanimate corse is 
only punishment inflicted upon the innocent sur- 
vivors, who, in most cases, have a large measure 
of suffering already entailed upon them. This 
was probably the humane reason for the silence 
of the Mosaic law as to the punishment of sui- 
cide. 

But as the law of the two tables is of general 
moral obligation, although a part also of the mu- 
nicipal law of the Jews ; as it concerned them as 
creatures, as well as subjects of the theocracy ; 
it takes cognizance of acts not merely as preju- 
dicial to society, but as offensive to God, and in 
opposition to his will as the ruler of the world. 
The precept, therefore, "Thou shalt not kill," 
must be taken to forbid, not only murder pro- 
perly so called, which is a crime against society, 
to be reached by human penalties, but also self- 
destruction, which, though a crime also in a 
lower degree against society, no human penal- 
ties can visit, but is left, since the offender is out 
of the reach of man, wholly to the retribution 
of God. The absence of all post mortem penal- 
ties against suicide in the Mosaic law is no proof, 
therefore, that it is not included in the prohibition, 
"Thou shalt not kill;" any more than the absence 
of all penalties in the same law against a covet- 
ous disposition proves any thing against the pre- 
cept, "Thou shalt not covet," being interpreted 
to extend to the heart of man, although violences, 
thefts, and other instances of covetousness, in 
action only, are restrained in the Mosaic law by 
positive penalties. Some have urged it, however, 
as a great absurdity, to allege this command- 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



659 



ment as a prohibition of suicide. "When a 
Christian moralist," says Dr. Whately, "is called 
on for a direct scriptural precept against suicide, 
instead of replying that the Bible is not meant 
for a complete code of laws, but for a system of 
motives and principles, the answer frequently 
given is, 'Thou shalt do no murder.' Suicide, 
if any one considers the nature and not the 
name of it, (self-murder,) evidently wants the 
essential characteristic of murder, viz. : the hurt 
and injury done to one's neighbor, in depriv- 
ing him of life, as well as to others by the inse- 
curity they are in consequence liable to feel." 
[Elements of Logic.) All this might be correct 
enough but for one error into which the writer 
has fallen, that of assuming that the precept is, 
"Thou shalt do no murder ;" for if that were 
the term used in the strict sense, we need not be 
told that suicide is not murder, which is only 
saying that the killing one's self is not the kill- 
ing another. The authorized translation uses 
the word "Mil" "Thou shalt not kill," as better 
rendering the Hebrew word, which has a similar 
latitude of meaning, and is used to express for- 
tuitous homicide, and the act of depriving of 
life generally, as well as murder, properly so 
called. That the prohibition respects the killing 
of others with criminal intent, all agree; and 
Moses describes, Numbers xxxv., the circum- 
stances which make that killing so criminal as to 
be punishable with death ; but that he included 
the different kinds of homicide within the prohi- 
bition, is equally certain, because the Mosaic 
law takes cognizance of homicide, and provides 
for the due examination of its circumstances by the 
judges, and recognizes the custom of the Goel, 
or avenging of blood, and provides cities of 
refuge for the homicide ; a provision which, how- 
ever merciful, left the incautious manslayer sub- 
ject to risks and inconveniences which had the 
nature of penalties. So tender was this law of 
the life of man ! Moses, however, as a legisla- 
tor, applying this great moral table of laws to 
practical legislation, could not extend the penal- 
ties under this prohibition farther than to these 
two cases, because in cases of suicide the offend- 
er is out of the reach of human power ; but, 
as we see the precept extended beyond the case 
of murder with criminal intention, to homicide, 
and that the word used in the prohibition, "Thou 
shalt not kill," is so indefinite as to comprehend 
every act by which man is deprived of life, when 
it has no authority from God, it lias boon very 
properly extended by divines and scriptural 
moralists, not only to homicide, but from that to 
suicide. This, indeed, appears to be its import, 
that it prohibits the taking a way of human life 
in all cases, without authority from God, which 



660 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES, 



authority he has lodged with human govern- 
ments, the "powers ordained by him" for the 
regulation of mankind, in what relates to the 
peace and welfare of society ; and whenever the 
life of man is taken away, except in cases sanc- 
tioned by human governments, proceeding upon 
the rules and principles of the word of God, then 
the precept, "Thou shalt not kill," is directly 
violated. Dr. Whately, in the passage above 
adverted to, objects to suicide being called self- 
murder, because this criminal act has not the 
qualities of that by which the life of another is 
intentionally and maliciously taken away; but 
if the deliberate and intentional deprivation of 
another of life, without authority from the Di- 
vine law, and from human laws established upon 
them, be that which, in fact, constitutes "mur- 
der," then is suicide entitled to be branded with 
the same odious appellation. The circumstances 
must, of necessity, differ ; but the act itself has 
essentially the same criminality, though not the 
same degree : it is the taking away of the life of 
a human being, without the authority of God, 
the maker and proprietor of all, and therefore 
in opposition to and defiance of his authority. 
That suicide has very deservedly received the 
morally descriptive appellation of self-murder, will 
also appear from the reason given, in the first 
prohibition against murder, for making this spe- 
cies of violence a capital crime. In the precepts 
delivered to the sons of Noah, and, therefore, 
through them, to all their descendants, that is, 
to all mankind, that against murder is thus de- 
livered: Gen. ix. 6, "Whoso sheddeth man's 
blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the 
image of God made he man." There is in this 
reason a manifest reference to the dignity put 
upon human nature, by its being endowed with 
a rational and immortal spirit. The crime of 
murder is made to lie, therefore, not merely in 
the putting to death the animal part of man's 
nature, for this is merged in a higher considera- 
tion, which seems to be, the indignity done to 
the noblest of the works of God ; and particu- 
larly, the value of life to an immortal being, ac- 
countable in another state for the actions done 
in this, and which ought for this very reason to 
be specially guarded, since death introduces him 
into changeless and eternal relations, which 
were not to lie at the mercy of human passions. 
Such moralists as the writer above quoted, would 
restrain the essential characteristics of an act of 
murder to the "hurt done to a neighbor in 
depriving him of life," and the "insecurity" 
inflicted upon society ; but in this ancient and 
universal law, it is made eminently to consist in 
contempt of the image of God in man, and its in- 
terference with man's immortal interests and 



[part III. 

relations as a deathless spirit ; and if so, then 
suicide bears upon it these deep and awful charac- 
teristics of murder. It is much more wisely said 
by Bishop Kidcler, in his remarks upon this pas- 
sage, that the reason given— "for in the image 
of God made he man" — is a further aggravation 
of the sin of murder. It is a great trespass 
upon God, as it destroys his likeness ; and self- 
murder, upon this account, is forbidden as well as 
the killing of others. 

Whatever weight may be due to the considera- 
tions urged by the moralists above quoted against 
this crime — and every motive which may deter 
men from listening to the first temptation to so 
direful an act is important — yet the guards of 
Christianity must be acknowledged to be of a 
more powerful kind. For the principles of our 
religion cannot be understood without our per- 
ceiving that, of almost all other crimes, wilful 
suicide ought most to be dreaded. It is a sin 
against God's authority. He is "the God of our 
life :" in " his hand our breath is ;" and we usurp 
his sovereignty when we presume to dispose of 
it. As resulting from the pressure of mortifica- 
tions of spirit, or the troubles of life, it becomes 
a sin, as arraigning his providential wisdom and 
goodness. It implies either an atheistic denial 
of God's government, or a rebellious opposition 
to his permissive acts or direct appointments : it 
cannot be committed, therefore, when the mind 
is sound, but in the absence of all the Christian 
virtues, of humility, self-denial, patience, and the 
fear and love of God, and only under the influ- 
ence of pride, worldliness, forgetfulness of God, 
and contempt of him. It hides from the mind 
the realities of a future judgment, or it defies 
them ; and it is consummated by the character 
of unpardonableness, because it places the crimi- 
nal at once beyond the reach of mercy. 

If no man has the right, then, to dispose of 
his own life by suicide, he has no right to hazard 
it in duels. The silence of the pulpits in those 
quarters where only the warning voice of the 
Christian preacher can be heard by that class of 
persons most addicted to this crime, is exceed- 
ingly disgraceful ; for there can be little doubt 
that the palliating views of this practice taken 
by some ethical writers of celebrity, together 
with the loose reasonings of men of the world, 
have, from this neglect, exercised much influence 
upon many minds ; and the consequence has 
been that hundreds, in this professedly Christian 
country, have fallen victims to false notions of 
honor, and to imperfect notions of the obliga- 
tions of their religion. Paley has the credit of 
dealing with this vice with greater decision than 
many of our moralists. He classes it very justly 
with murder. " Murder is forbidden ; andwher- 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY 



G61 



ever human life is deliberately taken away, 
otherwise than by public authority, there is 
murder." — Moral and Political Philosophy. " If 
unauthorized laws of honor be allowed to create 
exceptions to Divine prohibitions, there is an end 
to all morality, as founded in the will of the 
Deity ; and the obligation of every duty may, at 
one time or other, be discharged by the caprice 
and fluctuations of fashion." — Moral and Politi- 
cal Philosophy. The fact is, that we must either 
renounce Christianity, or try all cases by its rule. 
The question of the lawfulness of duelling is 
thus promptly disposed of. If I have received a 
personal injury, I am bound to forgive it, unless 
it be of such a nature that it becomes a duty to 
punish it by due course of law ; but even then 
not in the spirit of revenge, but out of respect 
to the peace and welfare of society. If I have 
given offence, I am bound to acknowledge it, and 
to make reparation ; and if my adversary will 
not be satisfied, and insists upon my staking my 
life against his own, no considerations of reputa- 
tion or disgrace, the good or ill opinion of men, 
who form their judgments in utter disregard to 
the laws of God, can have any more weight in 
this than in any other case of immorality. The 
sin of duelling unites, in fact, the two crimes of 
suicide and of murder. He who falls in a duel 
is guilty of suicide, by voluntarily exposing him- 
self to be slain : he by whom he falls is guilty 
of murder, as having shed man's blood without 
authority. Nay, the guilt of the two crimes 
unites in the same person. He who falls is a 
suicide in fact, and the murderer of another in 
intention : he by whom he falls is a murderer in 
fact, and so far a suicide as to have put his own 
life into imminent peril, in contempt of God's 
authority over him. He has contemned the 
"image of God in man," both in himself and in 
his brother. And where duels are not fatal on 
either side, the whole guilt is chargeable upon the 
parties, as a sin purposed in the heart, although, 
in that case, there is space left for repentance. 

Life, then, is not disposable at the option of 
man, nor is property itself, without respect to 
the rules of the Divine law ; and here, too, we 
shall perceive the feebleness of the considera- 
tions urged, in merely moral systems, to restrain 
prodigal and wasteful expenditure, hazardous 
speculations, and even the obvious evil of gam- 
bling. Many weighty arguments, we grant, may 
be drawn against all these from the claims of 
children and near relations, whose interests we 
are bound to regard, and whom we can have no 
right to expose even to the chance of being in- 
volved in the same ruin with ourselves. But 
these reasons can have little sway with those 
who fancy that they can keep within the verge 



of extreme danger, and who will plead their 
" natural right" to do what they will with their 
own. In cases, too, where there may be no 
children or dependent relatives, the individual 
would feel less disposed to acknowledge the force 
of this class of reasons, or think them quite in- 
applicable to his case. But Christianity enjoins 
"moderation" of the desires, and temperance in 
the gratification of the appetites, and in the show 
and splendor of life, even where a state of opu- 
lence can command them. It has its admoni- 
tions against the "love of money;" against 
"willing to be rich," except as "the Lord may 
prosper a man" in the usual track and course of 
honest industry — authoritative cautions which 
lie directly against hazardous speculations ; and 
it warns such as despise them of the consequent 
"temptations" and spiritual "snares," destruc- 
tive to habits of piety, and ultimately to the 
soul, into which they must fall — considerations 
of vast moment, but peculiar to itself, and quite 
out of the range of those moral systems which have 
no respect to its authority. Against gambling, in 
its most innocent forms, it sets its injunction, 
"Redeeming the time;" and in its more aggra- 
vated cases, it opposes to it not only the above 
considerations, as it springs from an unhallowed 
"love of money," but the whole of that spirit 
and temper which it makes to be obligatory upon 
us, and which those evil and often diabolical ex- 
citements, produced by this habit, so fearfully 
violate. Above all, it makes property a trust, to 
be employed under the rules prescribed by Him 
who, as sovereign proprietor, has deposited it 
with us, which rules require its use certainly ; 
(for the covetous are excluded from the kingdom 
of God ; ) but its use, first, for the supply of our 
wants, according to our station, with modera- 
tion ; then, as a provision for children and de- 
pendent relatives ; finally, for purposes of char- 
ity and religion, in which "grace," as before 
stated, it requires us "to abound;" and it en- 
forces all these by placing us under the respon- 
sibility of accounting to God himself, in person, 
for the abuse or neglect of this trust, at the gen- 
eral judgment. 

With respect to the third natural right, that 
of liberty, it is a question which can seldom or 
never occur in the present state of society, 
whether a man is free to part with it for a valu- 
able consideration. Under tho law of Moses, 
this was certainly allowed; but a Christian man 
stands on different ground. To a pagan ho would 
not be at liberty to enslave himself, because ho 
is not at liberty to put to hazard his soul's in- 
terests, which might be interfered with by tho 
control given to a, pagan over his time and con- 
duct. To a Christian ho could not be at liberty 



662 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART III. 



to alienate himself, because, the spirit of Christ- ! tions which Almighty God, the supreme governor 
ianity being opposed to slavery, the one is not at has laid upon his creatures. 



liberty to buy, nor the other to sell, for reasons 
before given. I conclude, therefore, that no man 
can lawfully divest himself absolutely of his 
personal liberty, for any consideration what- 
ever.* 

To the natural rights of life, property, and 
liberty, may be added the right of conscience. 



It does not, however, follow from this state- 
ment that human governments, professing to be 
regulated themselves by the principles of Christ- 
ianity, have no authority to take cognizance of 
the manner in which this right of conscience is 
| exercised. They are " ordained of God" to up- 
hold their subjects in the exercise of their just 



By this is meant the right which a man has to ■ rights respectively, and that without partiality 
profess his own opinions on subjects of religion, 
and to worship God in the mode which he deems 
most acceptable to him. Whether this, however, 



be strictly a natural right, like the three above 
mentioned, may be a subject of dispute, for then 
it would be universal, which is, perhaps, carry- 
ing the point too far. The matter may best be 
determined by considering the ground of that 
right, which differs much from the others we 
have mentioned. The right to life results both 
from the appointment of God and the absence 
of a superior or countervailing right in another 
to deprive us of it, until, at least, we forfeit that 
right to some third party, by some voluntary act 
of our own. This also applies to the rights of 
property and liberty. The right of professing 
particular religious opinions, and practicing a 
particular mode of worship, can only rest upon 
a conviction that these are duties enjoined upon 
us by God. For since religion is a matter which 
concerns man and God, a man must know that it 
is obligatory upon him as a duty, and under fear 
of God's displeasure, to profess his opinions 
openly, and to practice some particular mode of 
worship. 

To apply this to the case of persons all sin- 
cerely receiving the Bible as a revelation from 
God. Unquestionably it is a part of that revela- 
tion that those who receive its doctrines should 
profess and attempt to propagate them ; nor can 
they profess them in any other way than they 
interpret the meaning of the book which con- 
tains them. Equally clear is it that the worship 



If, therefore, under a plea of conscience, one 
sect should interfere to obstruct others in a 
peaceable profession of their opinions, and a 
peaceable exercise of their worship ; or should 
exercise its own so as to be vexatiously intrusive 
upon others, and in defiance of some rival sect — 
as, for instance, in a Protestant country, if Roman 
Catholics were to carry the objects of their idol- 
atry about the streets, instead of contenting 
themselves with worshipping in their own way, 
in their own chapels — in all such cases the go- 
vernment might be bound, in respect of the 
rights of other classes of its subjects, to interfere 
by restraint ; nor would it then trespass upon the 
rights of conscience, justly interpreted. Again, 
since " the powers that be are ordained of God," 
for "a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them 
that do well ;" which evil-doing and well-doing 
are to be interpreted according to the common 
sense and agreement of mankind, and plainly 
refer to moral actions only ; should any sect or 
individual, ignorantly, fanatically, or corruptly, 
so interpret the Scriptures as to suppose them- 
selves free from moral obligation, and then pro- 
ceed to practice their tenets by any such acts as 
violate the laws of well-ordered society, or by ad- 
mitting indecencies into their modes of worship, 
as some fanatics in former times who used to 
strip themselves naked in their assemblies : here, 
too, a government would have the right to dis- 
regard the plea of conscience if set up, and to 
restrain such acts, and the teachers of them, as 
pernicious to society. But if the opinions pro- 



of God is enjoined upon man, and that publicly, fessed by any sect, however erroneous they may 



and in collective bodies. From these circum- 
stances, therefore, it results that it is a duty 
which man owes to God to profess and to endea- 
vor to propagate his honest views of the meaning 
of the Scriptures, and to worship God in the 
mode which he sincerely conceives is made obli- 
gatory upon him by the same sacred volume. It 
is from this duty that the right of conscience 
flows, and from this alone ; and it thus becomes 
a right of that nature which no earthly power 
has any authority to obstruct, because it can 
have no power to alter or to destroy the obliga- 

* See note on page 658. 



be, and however zealously a sound and faithful 
Christian might be called by a sense of duty to 
denounce them as involving a corrupt conscience, 
or no conscience at all, and as dangerous or fatal 
to the salvation of those that hold them, do not 
interfere with the peace, the morals, and good 
order of society, it is not within the province of 
a government to animadvert upon them by force 
of law ; since it was not established to judge of 
men's sincerity in religion, nor of the tendency 
of opinions as they affect their salvation, but 
only to uphold the morals and good order of the 
community. So, likewise, what has been called 
by some worship, has been sometimes marked 



CH. IV.] 

with great excesses of enthusiasm, and with even 
ridiculous follies ; but if the peace of others, and 
the morals of society, are not thereby endangered, 
it is not the part of the magistracy to interfere, 
at least by authority. 

In cases, however, where political opinions 
are connected with religious notions, and the 
plea of conscience is set up as an "unalienable 
right" to sanction their propagation, a govern- 
ment may be justified in interposing, not indeed 
on the ground that it judges the conscience to be 
erring and corrupt, but for its own just support 
when endangered by such opinions. Sects of 
religious republicans have sometimes appeared 
under a monarchical government — the Fifth 
Monarchy Fanatics, for instance, who, according 
to their interpretation of the kingdom of Christ, 
regarded the existence of all earthly monarchies as 
inimical to it, and believing that the period of 
its establishment was come, thought it impiety to 
acknowledge any earthly sovereign, as being 
contrary to their allegiance to Christ. "When 
such notions are confined to a few persons, it is 
wise in a government to leave them to their own 
absurdities as their most potent cure ; but should 
a fanaticism of this kind seize upon a multitude, 
and render them restless and seditious, the state 
would be justifiable in restraining them by force, 
although a mistaken conscience might be mixed 
up with the error. We may, therefore, con- 
clude, that as to religious sects, the plea of con- 
science does not take their conduct out of the 
cognizance of the civil magistrate, when the 
peace, the morality, and safety of society are 
infringed upon; but that otherwise the rights 
of conscience are inviolable, even when it is 
obviously erroneous, and, religiously considered, 
as to the individual, dangerous. The case then 
is one which is to be dealt with by instruction 
and moral suasion. It belongs to public in- 
structors, and to all well-informed persons, to 
correct an ignorant and perverse conscience, by 
friendly and compassionate admonition ; and the 
power of the magistrate is only lawfully inter- 
posed, when the effect complained of so falls 
upon society as to infringe upon the rights of 
others, or upon the public morals and peace ; 
but even then the facts ought to be obvious, and 
not constructive. 

The case of those who reject the revelation of 
the Scriptures must bo considered on its own 
merits. 

Simple Deism, in a Christian country, may 
lay a foundation for such a plea of conscience as 
the stale ought to admit, although it should be 
rejected by a sound theologian. The Deist de- 
rives his religion by inference from what he sup- 
poses discoverable of the attributes and will of 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



663 



God from nature, and the course of the Divine 
government. Should he conclude that, among 
such indications of the will of God there are 
those which make it his duty to profess his opin- 
ions, to attack the evidences of our Divine reve- 
lation as of insufficient proof, and to worship 
God in a manner more agreeable to his system, 
it would be too delicate an interference of a go- 
vernment with a question of conscience, to be 
allowed to make itself the judge whether any 
such conviction could be conscientiously enter- 
tained ; although by divines, in their character 
of public instructors, this would properly be de- 
nied. Absolutely to shut out, by penal laws, all 
discussion on the evidences of Divine revelation, 
would probably make secret infidels in such 
numbers as would more than counterbalance the 
advantage which would be gained, and that by 
the suspicion which it would excite. But this 
principle would not extend to the protection of 
any doctrine directly subversive of justice, 
chastity, or humanity ; for then society would 
be attacked, and the natural as well as civil 
rights of man invaded. Nor can opprobrious and 
blasphemous attacks upon Christianity be covered 
by a plea of conscience and right, since these 
are not necessary to argument. It is evident 
that conscience, in the most liberal construction 
of the term, cannot be pleaded in their behalf; 
and they are not innocent even as to society. 

To those systems which deny the immortality 
of the soul, and, consequently, a state of future 
retribution, and which assume any of the forms 
of Atheism, no toleration can, consistently with 
duty, be extended by a Christian government. 
The reasons of this exception are, 1. That the 
very basis of its jurisprudence, which is founded 
upon a belief in God, the sanctity of oaths, and 
a future state, is assaulted by such doctrines, 
and that it cannot coexist with them. 2. That they 
are subversive of the morals of the people ; and, 
3. That no conscience can be pleaded by their 
votaries for the avowal of such tenets. When 
the existence of a God and his moral government 
are denied, no conscience can exist to require 
the publication of such tenets ; for this cannot 
be a duty imposed upon them by God, since they 
deny his existence. No right of conscience is 
therefore violated when they are restrained by 
civil penalties. Such persons cannot have the 
advantages of society without submitting to the 
principles on which it is founded ; and as they 
profess to believe that they are not accountable 
beings, their silence cannot be a guilt to thorn : 
they give up tho argument drawn from con- 
science and from its rights, which havo no exist- 
ence at all but as founded upon ukvkai.kd DUTY, 

The second branch of justice we have denomi- 



664 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



nated economical : it respects those • relations 
which, .grow out of the existence of men in 
families. 

The first is that of husband and wife, and 
arises out of the institution of marriage. 

The foundation of the marriage union is the 
will of God that the human race should "be 
fruitful and multiply," but only through a chaste 
and restricted conjunction of one man and one 
woman, united by their free vows in a bond made 
by the Divine law indissoluble, except by death 
or by adultery. The will of God as to marriage 
is, however, general, and is not so expressed as 
to lay an imperative obligation to marry upon 
every one, in all circumstances. There was no 
need of the law being directed to each individual, 
as such, since the instincts of nature, and the 
affection of love planted in human beings, were 
sufficient to guarantee its general observance. 
The very bond of marriage, too, being the pre- 
ference founded upon love, rendered the act one 
in which choice and feeling were to have great 
influence ; nor could a prudent regard to circum- 
stances be excluded. Cases were possible in 
which such a preference as is essential to the 
felicity and advantages of that state might not 
be excited, nor the due degree of affection to 
warrant the union called forth. There might be 
cases in which circumstances might be inimical 
to the full discharge of some of the duties of 
that state, as the comfortable maintenance of a 
wife, and a proper provision for children. Some 
individuals would also be called by Providence 
to duties in the Church and in the world, which 
might better be performed in a single and unfet- 
tered life ; and seasons of persecution, as we 
are taught by St. Paul, have rendered it an act 
of Christian prudence to abstain even from this 
honorable estate. The general rule, however, 
is in favor of marriage ; and all exceptions seem 
to require justification on some principle ground- 
ed upon an equal or & paramount obligation. 

One intention of marriage in its original in- 
stitution was the production of the greatest 
number of healthy children ; and that it se- 
cures this object is proved from the universal 
fact, that population increases more, and is of 
better quality, where marriage is established, 
and its sacred laws are observed, than where 
the intercourse of the sexes is promiscuous. A 
second end was the establishment of the inte- 
resting and influential relations of acknowledged 
children and parents, from which the most en- 
dearing, meliorating, and pure affections result, 
and which could not exist without marriage. It 
is, indeed, scarcely possible even to sketch the 
numerous and important effects of this sacred 
institution, which at once displays in the most 



[part m. 

affecting manner the Divine benevolence and the 
Divine wisdom. It secures the preservation and 
tender nurture of children, by concentrating an 
affection upon them which is dissipated and lost 
wherever fornication prevails. It creates conju- 
gal tenderness, filial piety, the attachment of 
brothers and sisters, and of collateral relations. 
It softens the feelings, and increases the benevo- 
lence of society at large, by bringing all these 
affections to operate powerfully within each of 
those domestic and family circles of which so- 
ciety is composed. It excites industry and eco- 
nomy, and secures the communication of moral 
knowledge, and the inculcation of civility, and 
early habits of submission to authority, by 
which men are fitted to become the subjects of a 
public government, and without which, perhaps, 
no government could be sustained but by brute 
force, or, it may be, not sustained at all. These 
are some of the innumerable benefits by which 
marriage promotes human happiness, and the 
peace and strength of the community at large. 

The institution of marriage not only excludes 
the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, but 
polygamy also ; a practice almost equally fatal 
to the kind affections, to education, to morals, 
and to purity. The argument of our Lord with 
the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, (Matt, 
xix.,) assumes it as even acknowledged by the 
Jews that marriage was not only of Divine in- 
stitution, but that it consisted in the union of 
two only — "they twain shall be one flesh." This 
was the law of marriage given at first, not to 
Adam and Eve only, but prospectively to all 
their descendants. The first instance of poly- 
gamy was that of Lamech, and this has no 
sanction from the Scripture, which may be ob- 
served of other instances in the Old Testament. 
They were opposed to the original law, and in 
all cases appear to have been punished with 
many afflictive visitations. The Mosaic law, al- 
though polygamy appears to have been practiced 
under it, gives no direct countenance to the 
practice ; which intimates that, as in the case 
of divorce, the connivance was not intended to 
displace the original institution. Hence, in the 
language of the Old Testament, as well as of 
the New, the terms husband and wife in the sin- 
gular number continually occur ; and a passage 
in the Prophet Malachi is so remarkable as to 
warrant the conclusion, that among the pious 
Jews the original law was never wholly out of 
sight. "Yet ye say, Wherefore ? Because the 
Lord hath been witness between thee and the 
wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast 
dealt treacherously ; yet is she thy companion, 
and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he 
make one?" — (one woman.) "Yet had he the 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



665 



residue of the spirit;" — (and therefore could 
have made more than one.) "And -wherefore 
one?" "That he might seek a godly seed," is 
the answer ; which strongly shows how closely 
connected in the prophet's mind were the circum- 
stances of piety in the offspring, and the re- 
straint of marriage to one wife only ; for he thus 
glances at one of the obvious evils of polygamy, 
its deteriorating moral influence upon children. 
If, however, in some instances the practice of 
the Jews fell short of the strictness of the origi- 
nal law of marriage, that law is now fully re- 
stored by Christ. In a discourse with the 
Pharisees, he not only reenacts that law, but 
guards against its evasion by the practice of 
divorce, and asserts the marriage union to be 
indissoluble by any thing but adultery. The 
argument of our Lord in this discourse is, in- 
deed, equally conclusive against polygamy and 
against the practice of divorce; for "if," says 
Dr. Paley, "whoever putteth away his wife and 
marrieth another committeth adultery, he who 
marrieth another, the first wife being living, is 
no less guilty of adultery ; because the adultery 
does not consist in the repudiation of the first 
wife ; for, however cruel and unjust that may 
be, it is not adultery ; but in entering into a se- 
cond marriage during the legal existence and 
obligation of the first." 

Nature itself comes in also as a confirmation 
of this original law. In births, there is a small 
surplusage of males over females ; which, being 
reduced by the more precarious life of males, 
and by the accidents to which, more than fe- 
males, they are exposed from wars and danger- 
ous employments, brings the number of males 
and females to a par, and shows that in the order 
of Providence a man ought to have but one wife ; 
and that where polygamy is not allowed, every 
woman may have a husband. This equality, too, 
is found in all countries ; although some licen- 
tious writers have attempted to deny it upon 
unsound evidence. 

Another end of marriage was the prevention 
of fornication ; and as this is done, not only 
by providing for a lawful gratification of the 
sexual appetite, but more especially by that 
mutual affection upon which marriages, when 
contracted according to the will of God, are 
founded, this conjunction necessarily requires 
that degree of love between the contracting par- 
ties which produces a preference of each other 
above every other man or woman in the world. 
Wherever this degree of affection does not exist, 
it may therefore be concluded that the rite of 
marriage is profaned, and the greatest security 
for the accomplishment of its moral ends weak- 
ened or destroyed. Interest, compliance with 



the views of family connections, caprice, or cor- 
: poral attractions, it may be therefore concluded, 
j are not in themselves lawful grounds of mar- 
riage, as tending, without affection, to frustrate 
i the intention of God in its institution ; to which 
' end all are bound to subject themselves. On the 
| other hand, since love is often a delusive and 
sickly affection, exceedingly temporary and un- 
! certain when it is unconnected with judgment 
and prudence ; and also because marriages are 
for the most part contracted by the young and 
inexperienced, whose passions are then strongest 
when their judgments are most immature ; in no 
step in life is the counsel of others more neces- 
sary, and in no case ought it to be sought with 
greater docility, than in this. A proper respect 
to the circumstances of age, fitness, etc., ought 
never to be superseded by the plea of mere 
affection ; although no circumstances can justify 
marriage without that degree of affection which 
produces an absolute preference. 

Whether marriage be a civil or a religious con- 
tract has been a subject of dispute. The truth 
seems to be that it is both. It has its engage- 
ments to men, and its vows to God. A Christian 
state recognizes marriage as a branch of public 
morality, and a source of civil peace and strength. 
It is connected with the peace of society by as- 
signing one woman to one man, and the state 
protects him, therefore, in her exclusive posses- 
sion. Christianity, by allowing divorce in the 
event of adultery, supposes, also, that the crime 
must be proved by proper evidence before the 
civil magistrate ; and lest divorce should be the 
result of unfounded suspicion, or be made a 
cover for license, the decision of the case could 
safely be lodged nowhere else. Marriage, too, 
as placing one human being more completely 
under the power of another than any other rela- 
tion, requires laws for the protection of those 
who are thus so exposed to injury. The distribu- 
tion of society into families, also, can only be an 
instrument for promoting the order of the com- 
munity, by the cognizance which the law takes 
of the head of a family, and by making him re- 
sponsible, to a certain extent, for the conduct 
of those under his influence. Questions of pro- 
perty are also involved in marriage and its issue. 
The law must, therefore, for these and many 
other weighty reasons, be cognizant of marriage ; 
must prescribe various regulations respecting 
it; require publicity of the contract ; and guard 
some of the great injunctions of religion in the 
matter by penalties. In no well-ordered state 
can marriage, therefore, be so exclusively left 
to religion as to shut out the cognizance and 
control of the stale. But then those who would 
have the whole matter to lie between the parties 



666 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[part ILL 



themselves and the civil magistrate, appear 
wholly to forget that marriage is a solemn reli- 
gious act, in which vows are made to God by 
both persons, who, when the rite is properly 
understood, engage to abide by all those laws 
with which he has guarded the institution ; to 
love and cherish each other ; and to remain 
faithful to each other until death. For if, at 
least, they profess belief in Christianity, what- 
ever duties are laid upon husbands and wives in 
Holy Scripture, they engage to obey by the very 
act of their contracting marriage. The question, 
then, is whether such vows to God as are neces- 
sarily involved in marriage, are to be left be- 
tween the parties and God privately, or whether 
they ought to be publicly made before his minis- 
ters and the Church. On this the Scriptures are 
silent; but though Michaelis has showed {Com- 
mentaries on the Laws of Hoses) that the priests 
under the law were not appointed to celebrate 
marriage, yet in the practice of the modern 
Jews it is a religious ceremony, the chief rabbi 
of the synagogue being present, and prayers 
being appointed for the occasion. (Allen's 3Io- 
dern Judaism.) This renders it probable that the 
character of the ceremony under the law, from 
the most ancient times, was a religious one. The 
more direct connection of marriage with religion 
in Christian states, by assigning its celebration 
to the ministers of religion, appears to be a very 
beneficial custom, and one which the state has a 
right to enjoin. For since the welfare and mo- 
rals of society are so much interested in the 
performance of the mutual duties of the married 
state ; and since those duties have a religious as 
well as civil character, it is most proper that 
some provision should be made for explaining 
those duties ; and for this a standing form of 
marriage is best adapted. By acts of religion, 
also, they are more solemnly impressed upon the 
parties. When this is prescribed in any state, it 
becomes a Christian, cheerfully and even thank- 
fully, to comply with a custom of so important 
a tendency, as matter of conscientious subjection 
to lawful authority, although no scriptural pre- 
cept can be pleaded for it. That the ceremony 
should be confined to the clergy of an Established 
Church is a different consideration. We are in- 
clined to think that the religious effect would be 
greater, were the ministers of each religious 
body to be authorized by the state to celebrate 
marriages among their own people, due provi- 
sion being made for the regular and secure regis- 
try of them, and to prevent the civil laws re- 
specting marriage from being evaded. 

When this important contract is once made, 
then certain rights are acquired by the parties 
mutually, who are also bound by reciprocal du- 



| ties, in the fulfilment of which the practical 
! "righteousness" of each consists. Here, also, 
the superior character of the morals of the New 
I Testament, as well as their higher authority, is 
J illustrated. It may, indeed, be within the scope 
! of mere moralists to show that fidelity and affec- 
tion, and all the courtesies necessary to main- 
tain affection, are rationally obligatory upon 
those who are connected by the nuptial bond ; 
but in Christianity that fidelity is guarded by 
the express law, "Thou shalt not commit adul- 
tery;" and by our Lord's exposition of the 
spirit of that law, which forbids the indulgence 
of loose thoughts and desires, and places the 
purity of the heart under the guardianship of 
that hallowed fear which his authority tends to 
inspire. Affection, too, is made a matter of dili- 
gent cultivation upon considerations, and by a 
standard, peculiar to our religion. Husbands 
are placed in a relation to their wives similar to 
that which Christ bears to his Church, and his 
example is thus made their ruler as Christ "gave 
himself," his life, "for the Church," (Eph. v. 
25,) so are they to hazard life for their wives. 
As Christ saves his Church, so is it the bounden 
duty of husbands to endeavor, by every possible 
means, to promote the religious edification and 
salvation of their wives. The connection is thus 
exalted into a religious one ; and when love which 
knows no abatement, protection at the hazard of 
life, and a tender and constant solicitude for the 
salvation of a wife, are thus enjoined, the greatest 
possible security is established for the exercise 
of kindness and fidelity. The oneness of this 
union is also more forcibly stated in Scripture 
than anywhere beside: "They twain shall be 
one flesh." "So ought men to love their wives 
as their own bodies : he that loveth his wife loveth 
himself. For no man ever yet hated his own 
flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as 
the Lord the Church." Precept and illustration 
can go no higher than this ; and nothing evi- 
dently is wanting, either of direction or authority, 
to raise the state of marriage into the highest, 
most endearing, and sanctified relation in which 
two human beings can stand to each other. The 
duties of wives are reciprocal to those of hus- 
bands. The outline in the note below 1 comprises 
both : it presents a series of obligations which 
are obviously drawn from the New Testament ; 



PAKTICU1AR DUTIES OF HUS- 
BANDS. 



1 PARTICULAR DUTIES OF 
"WIVES. 

Subjection, the generall head Wisdom aiid love, the gene- 
of all wives duties. rail heads of all husbands 

duties. 
Acknowledgment of an hus- Acknowledgment of a wives 
bands superioritie. neere conjunction and fel- 

lowship with her husband. 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY, 



667 



but -which nothing except that could furnish. 
The extract is made from an old writer, and, al- 
though expressed in homely phrase, will be ad- 
mired for discrimination and comprehensive- 
ness. 

The duties oe children is a branch of Chris- 
tian morality which receives both illustration 
and authority in a very remarkable and pecu- 
liar manner from the Scriptures. "Honor thy 
father and thy mother," is a precept which oc- 
cupies a place in those tables of law which were 
written at first by the finger of God ; and is, as 



A due esteeme of her owne 
husband as the best for 
her, and worthy of honor 
on her part. 

An inward wife-like fear. 

An outward reverend car- 
riage toward her husband, 
which consisteth in a wive- 
like sobrietie, mildnesse, 
curtissie, and modestie in 
apparel. 

Keverend speech to and of 

her husband. 
Obedience. 



Forbearing to do without or 
against her husband's con- 
sent, such things as he 
hath power to order, as, to 
dispose and order the com- 
mon goods of the familie, 
and the allowance for it, 
or children, servants, cat- 
tell, guests, journies, etc. 

A ready yielding to what her 
husband would have done. 
This is manifested by a 
willingness to dwell where 
he will, to come when he 
calls, and to do what he 
requireth. 

A patient hearing of any re- 
proofe, and a ready re- 
dressing of that for which 
she is justly reproved. 

Contentment with her hus- 
bands present estate. 

Such a subjection as may 
stand with her subjection 
to Christ. 

Such a subjection as the 
Church yieldeth to Christ, 
which is sincere, pure, 
cheerful, constant, for con- 
science sake. 



A good esteeme of his owne 
wife as the best for him, 
and worthy of love on his 
part. 

An inward intire affection. 

An outward amiable carriage 
toward his wife, which con- 
sisteth in an husband-like 
gravity, mildnesse, cour- 
teous acceptance of her 
curtissie, and allowing her 
to wear fit apparel. 

Mild and loving speech to 
and of his wife. 

A wise maintaining his au- 
thority, and forbearing to 
exact all that is in his 
power. 

A ready yielding to his wives 
request, and giving a gene- 
rail consent and libertie 
unto her to order the af- 
faires of the house, child- 
ren, servants, etc. And a 
free allowing her some- 
thing to bestow as she 
seeth occasion. 

A forbearing to exact more 
than his wife is willing to 
doe, or to force her to 
dwell where it is not meet, 
or to enjoyne her to do 
things that are unmeet in 
themselves, or against her 
mind. 

A wise ordering of reproofe, 
not using it without just 
and weighty cause, and 
then privately and meekly. 

A provident care for his wife, 
according to his abilities. 

A forbearing to exact any 
thing which stands not 
with a good conscience. 

Such a love as Christ beareth 
to the Church, and man to 
himselfo, which is first 
free, in deed and truth, 
pure, chaste, constant. 



ABERRATIONS OF WIVE8 FROM ABERRATIONS OF nUSBANDS 
FROM THEIR PARTICULAR DU- 
TIES. 

Want of wisdovie and love, 
tho gonorall grounds of 
tho alienations of hus- 
bands. 



THEIR PARTICULAR DUTIES. 

Ambition, the generall 
ground of tho aberrations 
of wives. 



the Apostle Paul notes, "the first commandment 
with promise." The meaning of the term honor 
is comprehensive, and imports, as appears from 
various passages in which it occurs, reverence, 
affection, and grateful obedience. It expresses 
at once a principle and a feeling, each of which 
must influence the practice ; one binding obe- 
dience upon the conscience, the other rendering 
it the free effusion of the heart ; one securing 
the great points of duty, and the other giving 
rise to a thousand tender sentiments and cour- 
tesies which mutually meliorate the temper, and 



A conceit that wives are 
their husbands equals. 

A conceit that she could bet- 
ter subject herselfe to any 
other man than to her 
own husband. 

An inward despising of her 



Unreverend behavior toward 
her husband, manifested 
by lightnesse, sullennesse, 
scornful n esse, and vanity 
in her attire. 

Unreverend speech to and 
of her husband. 

A stout standing on her 
owne will. 

A peremptory undertaking 
to do things as she list, 
without and against her 
husbands consent. This 
is manifested by privy pur- 
loyning his goods, taking 
allowance, ordering child- 
ren, servants, and cattell, 
feasting strangers, mak- 
ing journies and vows, as 
herselfe listeth. 

An obstinate standing upon 
her owne will, making her 
husband dwell where she 
will, and refusing to goe 
when he calls, or to doe 
any thing upon his com- 
mand. 

Disdaine at reproofe : giving 
word for word ; and wax- 
ing worse for being re- 
proved. 



Discontent at her husbands 
estate. 



Such a pleasing of her hus- 
band as offendeth Christ. 

Such a subjection as is most 
unliko to the Chuivli's, 
viz., fained, forced, fickle, 
etc. 



Too mean account of wives. 

A preposterous conceit of hia 
owne wife to be the worst 
of all, and that he could 
love any but her. 

A stoicall disposition, with- 
out all heat of affection. 

An unbeseeming carriage to- 
ward his wife, manifested 
by his baseness, tyranni- 
call usage of her loftinesse, 
rashnesse, and niggardli- 
nesse. 

Harsh, proud, and bitter 
speeches to and of his 
wife. 

Losing of his authority. 

Too much strictnesse over 
his wife. This is mani- 
fested by restraining her 
from doing any thing with- 
out particular and expresse 
consent, taking too strict 
account of her, and allow- 
ing her no more than is 
needful for her owne pri- 
vate use. 

Too lordly a standing upon 
the highest step of his au- 
thority: being too fre- 
quent insolent and per- 
emptory in commanding 
things frivolous, unmeet, 
and against his wifes 
minde and conscience. 

Eashnesse and bitternesso 
in reproving ; and that 
too frequently on slight 
occasions, and disgraceful- 
ly before children, ser- 
vants, and strangers. 

A careless neglect of his 
wife, and niggardly deal- 
ing with her. and that in 
her weaknesse. 

A commanding of unlawful 
tilings. 

Such a disposition as is most 

unlike to Christ's, and to 
that which a man heareth 

to himselfe. via., compli- 
ment, Impure) tor by re- 
speots, Inconstant, etc 



668 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



open one of the richest sources of domestic 
felicity. 

The honoring of parents is likewise enforced 
in Scripture by a temporal promise. This is not 
peculiar to the law ; for when the apostle refers 
to this "as the first commandment with pro- 
mise," and adds, " that it may be well with thee, 
aud that thou mayest live long on the earth," 
(Eph. vi. 2, 3,) he clearly intimates that this 
promise is carried forward into the Christian 
dispensation; and though it is undoubtedly 
modified by the circumstances of an economy 
which is not so much founded upon temporal 
promises as the law, it retains its full force as a 
general declaration of special favor on the part 
of God. This duty also derives a most influen- 
tial and affecting illustration from the conduct 
of our Lord, who was himself an instance of 
subjection to parents, of the kindest behavior to 
them ; and who, amidst his agonies on the cross, 
commended his weeping mother to the special 
regard of the beloved disciple, John, charging 
him with her care and support as a" son," in 
his own stead. In no system of mere ethics, 
certainly, is this great duty, on which so much 
of human interest and felicity depends, and 
which exerts so much influence upon society, 
thus illustrated and thus enforced. 

The duties of children may be thus sketched. 

Love, which is founded upon esteem and reve- 
rence, comprises gratitude also ; no small degree 
of which is obligatory upon every child for the 
unwearied cares, labors, and kindness of parental 
affection. In the few unhappy instances in 
which esteem for a parent can have little place, 
gratitude, at least, ought to remain; nor can 
any case arise in which the obligation of filial 
love can be cancelled. 

Reverence, which consists in that honorable 
esteem of parents which children ought to 
cherish in their hearts, and from which springs 
on the one hand the desire to please, and on the 
other the fear to offend. The fear of a child is, 
however, opposed to the fear of a slave: the 
latter has respect chiefly to the punishment which 
may be inflicted; but the other being mixed 
with love, and the desire to be loved, has respect 
to the offence which may be taken by a parent, 
his grief, and his displeasure. Hence the fear 
of God, as a grace of the Spirit in the regenerate, 
is compared to the fear of children. This reve- 
rential regard due to parents has its external ex- 
pression in all honor and civility, whether in 
words or actions. The behavior is to be submis- 
sive, the speech respectful: reproof is to be 
borne by them with meekness, and the im- 
patience of parents sustained in silence. Child- 
ren are bound to close their eyes as much as 



[PART in. 

possible upon the failings and infirmities of the 
authors of their being, and always to speak of 
them honorably among themselves, and in the 
presence of others. " The hearts of all men go 
along with Xoah in laying punishment upon Ham 
for his unnatural and profane derision, and love 
the memory of those sons that would not see 
themselves nor suffer others to be the witnesses 
of the miscarriages of their father." In the 
duty of "honoring" parents is also included 
their support when in necessity. This appears 
from our Lord's application of this command- 
ment of the law in his reproof of the Pharisees, 
who, if they had made a vow of their property, 
thought it then lawful to withhold assistance 
from their parents. Matt. xv. 4-6. 

To affection and reverence is to be added, 
Obedeexce, which is universal: "Children, 
obey your parents in all things," with only one 
restriction, which respects the consciences of 
children when at age to judge for themselves. 
The apostle, therefore, adds, " in the Lord." 
That this limits the obedience of children to the 
lawful commands of parents, is clear, also, from 
our Lord's words, " He that loveth father or mo- 
ther more than me, is not worthy of me." God 
is to be loved and obeyed above all. In all law- 
ful things the rule is absolute ; and the obedi- 
ence, like that we owe to God, ought to be 
cheerful and unwearied. Should it chance to 
cross our inclinations, this will be no excuse for 
hesitancy, much less for refusal. 

One of the principal cases in which this prin- 
ciple is often most severely tried, is that of 
marriage. The general rule clearly is, that 
neither son nor daughter ought to marry against 
the command of a father, with whom the prime 
authority of the family is lodged ; nor even 
without the consent of the mother, should the 
father be willing, if she can find any weighty 
reason for her objection ; for although the autho- 
rity of the mother is subordinate and secondary, 
yet is she entitled to obedience from the child. 
There is, however, a considerable difference be- 
tween marrying at the command of a parent, 
and marrying against his prohibition. In the 
first case, children are more at liberty than in 
the other ; yet even here the wishes of parents 
in this respect are to be taken into most serious 
consideration, with a preponderating desire to 
yield to them ; but if a child feels that his affec- 
tions still refuse to run in the course of the 
parents' wishes — if he is conscious that he can- 
not love his intended wife " as himself," as " his 
own flesh" — he is prohibited by a higher rule, 
which presents an insuperable barrier to his 
compliance. In this case the child is at liberty 
to refuse, if it be done deliberately, and ex- 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



669 



pressed with modesty and proper regret at not 
being able to comply, for the reasons stated; 
and every parent ought to dispense freely with 
the claim of obedience. But to marry in oppo- 
sition to a parent's express prohibition, is a very 
grave case. The general rule lies directly against 
this act of disobedience as against all others, 
and the violation of it is, therefore, sin. And 
what blessing can be expected to follow such 
marriages ? or rather, what curse may not be 
feared to follow them ? The law of God is trans- 
gressed, and the image of his authority in 
parents is despised. Those exceptions to this 
rule which can be justified are very few. 

In no case but where the parties have attained 
the full legal age of twenty-one years ought an 
exception to be even considered ; but it may 
perhaps be allowed, 1. When the sole objection 
of the parent is the marriage of his child with 
a person fearing God. 2. When the sole reason 
given is a wish to keep a child unmarried from 
caprice, interest, or other motive, which no 
parent has a right to require when the child is of 
legal age. 3. When the objections are simply 
those of prejudice without reasonable ground ; 
but in this case the child ought not to assume to 
be the sole judge of the parent's reasons, and 
would not be at liberty to act, unless supported 
by the opinion of impartial and judicious friends, 
whose advice and mediation ought to be asked, 
in order that, in so delicate an affair, he or she 
may proceed with a clear conscience. 

The persuading a daughter to elope from her 
parents' house, where the motive is no other 
than the wilful following of personal affection, 
which spurns at parental control and authority, 
must, therefore, be considered as a great crime. 
It induces the daughter to commit a very crimi- 
nal act of disobedience ; and, on the part of the 
man, it is a worse kind of felony than stealing 
the property of another. "For children are 
much more properly a man's own than his goods, 
and the more highly to be esteemed, by how 
much reasonable creatures are to be preferred 
before senseless things." — Gouge on Relative 
Duties. 

The duties of parents are exhibited with 
equal clearness in the Scriptures, and contain a 
body of most important practical instructions. 

The first duty is love, which, although a na- 
tural instinct, is yet to be cultivated and nour- 
ished by Christians under a sense of duty, and 
by frequent meditation upon all those important 
and interesting relations in which religion has 
placed them and their offspring. The duty of 
sustentation and care, therefore, under the most 
trying circumstances, is imperative upon pa- 
rents ; for, though this is not directly enjoined, 



it is supposed necessarily to follow from that 
parental love which the Scriptures inculcate; 
and also because the denial of either to infants 
would destroy them, and thus the unnatural pa- 
rent would be involved in the crime of murder. 

To this follows instruction, care for the mind 
succeeding the nourishment and care of the 
body. This relates to the providing of such an 
education for children as is suited to their con- 
dition, and by which they may be fitted to gain 
a reputable livelihood when they are of age to 
apply themselves to business. But it specially 
relates to their instruction in the doctrines of 
holy writ. This is clearly what the Apostle Paul 
means (Eph. vi. 4) by directing parents to "bring 
them up in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord." A parent is considered in Scripture as a 
priest in his own family, which is a view of 
this relation not to be found in ethical writers, 
or deducible from any principles from which 
they would infer parental duties, independently 
of revelation ; and from this it derives a most 
exalted character. The offices of sacrifice, in- 
tercession, and religious instruction, were all 
performed by the patriarchs ; and, as we have 
already seen, although, under the law, the offer- 
ing of sacrifices was restrained to the appointed 
priesthood, yet was it still the duty of the head 
of the family to bring his sacrifices for immola- 
tion in the prescribed manner ; and so far was 
the institution of public teachers from being de- 
signed to supersede the father's office, that the 
heads of the Jewish families were specially en- 
joined to teach the law to their children dili- 
gently, and daily. Deut. vi. 7. Under the same 
view does Christianity regard the heads of its 
families, as priests in their houses, offering 
spiritual gifts and sacrifices, and as the religious 
instructors of their children. Hence it is, in the 
passage above quoted, that "fathers" are com- 
manded "to bring up their children in the nur- 
ture and admonition of the Lord ;" or, in other 
words, in the knowledge of the doctrines, duties, 
motives, and hopes of the Christian religion. 
This is a work, therefore, which belongs to the 
very office of a father as the priest of his house- 
hold, and cannot be neglected by him but at his 
own and his children's peril. Nor is it to be 
occasionally and cursorily performed, but so that 
the object may be attained ; namely, that they 
may "know the Scriptures from their child- 
hood," and have stored their minds with their 
laws, and doctrines, and promises, as their guide 
in future life — a work which will require, at 
least, as much attention from the Christian as 
from the Jewish parent, who was commanded on 
this wise: "Thou shalt teach them diligently 
unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when 



670 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART m. 



thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest 
by the way, when thou liest down, and when 
thourisest up." The practice of the Jews in 
this respect appears to have been adopted by 
the Christians of the primitive Churches, which 
were composed of both Jewish and Gentile con- 
verts in almost every place ; and from them it is 
probable that the early customs of teaching 
children to commit portions of Scripture to 
memory, to repeat prayers night and morning, 
and to approach their parents for their blessing, 
might be derived. The last pleasing and im- 
pressive form, which contains a recognition of 
the domestic priesthood, as inherent in the head 
of any family, has in this country grown of late 
into disuse, which is much to be regretted. 

It is also essential to the proper discharge of 
the parental duty of instructing children that 
every means should be used to render what is 
taught influential upon the heart and conduct. 
It is, therefore, solemnly imperative upon pa- 
rents to be "holy in all manner of conversation 
and godliness," and thus to enforce truth by 
example. It concerns them, as much as minis- 
ters, to be anxious for the success of their la- 
bors ; and recognizing the same principle, that 
"God giveth the increase," to be abundant in 
prayers for the gift of the Holy Spirit to their 
children. Both as a means of grace, and in re- 
cognition of God's covenant of mercy with them 
and their seed after them, it behooves them also 
to bring their children to baptism in their in- 
fancy ; to explain to them the baptismal cove- 
nant when they are able to understand it ; and 
to habituate them from early years to the ob- 
servance of the Sabbath, and to regular attend- 
ance on the public worship of God. 

The government of children is another great 
branch of parental duty, in which both the pa- 
rents are bound cordially to unite. Like all 
other kinds of government appointed by God, 
the end is the good of those subject to it; and 
it therefore excludes all caprice, vexation, and 
tyranny. In the case of parents, it is eminently 
a government of love, and therefore, although 
it includes strictness, it necessarily excludes 
severity. The mild and benevolent character of 
our Divine religion displays itself here, as in 
every other instance where the heat of temper, 
the possession of power, or the ebullitions of 
passion, might be turned against the weak and 
unprotected. The civil laws of those countries 
in which Christianity was first promulgated gave 
great power to parents 1 over their children, 
which, in the unfeeling spirit of paganism, was 
often harshly and even cruelly used. On the 



1 By the old Roman law, the father had the power of 
life and death as to his children. 



contrary, St. Paul enjoins, "And ye fathers, 
provoke not your children to wrath;" meaning 
plainly, by a rigorous severity, an overbearing 
and tyrannical behavior, tending to exasperate 
angry passions in them. So again, "Fathers, 
provoke not your children, lest they be discour- 
aged" — discouraged from all attempts at pleasing, 
as regarding it an impossible task, "and be un- 
fitted to pass through the world with advantage, 
when their spirits have been unreasonably broken 
under an oppressive yoke in the earliest years 
of their life." — Doddkidge on Coloss. iii. 21. 
But though the parental government is founded 
upon kindness, and can never be separated from 
it, when rightly understood and exercised, it is 
still government, and is a trust committed by 
God to the parent, which must be faithfully dis- 
charged. Corporal correction is not only allowed, 
but is made a duty in Scripture, where other 
means would be ineffectual. Yet it may be laid 
down as a certain principle, that where the au- 
thority of a parent is exercised with constancy 
and discretion, and enforced by gravity, kind- 
ness, and character, this will seldom be found 
necessary; nor, when the steady resolution of 
the parent to inflict it when it is demanded by 
the case is once known to the child, will it need 
often to be repeated. Parental government is 
also concerned in forming the manners of child- 
ren; in inculcating civility, order, cleanliness, 
industry, and economy; in repressing extrava- 
gant desires and gratifications in dress and 
amusements ; and in habituating the will to a 
ready submission to authority. It must be so 
supreme, whatever the age of children may be, 
as to control the whole order and habits of the 
family, and to exclude all licentiousness, riot, 
and unbecoming amusements from the house, 
lest the curse of Eli should fall upon those who 
imitate his example in not reproving evil with 
sufficient earnestness, and not restraining it by 
the effectual exercise of authority. 

Another duty of parents is the comfortable 
settlement of their children in the world, as far 
as their ability extends. This includes the dis- 
creet choosing of a calling, by whieh their child- 
ren may "provide things honest in the sight of 
all men;" taking especial care, however, that 
their moral safety shall be consulted in the 
choice — a consideration which too many disre- 
gard, under the influence of carelessness or a 
vain ambition. The "laying iip for children" is 
also sanctioned both by nature and by our re- 
ligion ; but this is not so to be understood as that 
the comforts of a parent, according to his rank 
in life, should be abridged ; nor that it should 
interfere with those charities which Christianity 
has made his personal duty. 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



671 



The next of these reciprocal duties are those 

Of SERVANT and MASTER. 

This is a relation which will continue to the 
end of time. Equality of condition is alike con- 
trary to the nature of things, and to the appoint- 
ment of God. Some must toil, and others direct : 
some command, and others obey ; nor is this 
order contrary to the real interest of the multi- 
tude, as at first sight it might appear. The ac- 
quisition of wealth by a few affords more abun- 
dant employment to the many ; and in a well- 
ordered, thriving, and industrious state, except 
in seasons of peculiar distress, it is evident that 
the comforts of the lower classes are greater than 
could be attained were the land equally divided 
among them, and so left to their own cultivation 
that no one should be the servant of another. 
To preserve such a state of things would be im- 
possible ; and could it be done, no arts but of 
the rudest kind, no manufactures, and no com- 
merce, could exist. The very first attempt to in- 
troduce these would necessarily create the two 
classes of workmen and employers — of the many 
who labor with the hands, and the few who labor 
with the mind, in directing the operations ; and 
thus the equality would be destroyed. 

It is not, however, to be denied that, through 
the bad principles and violent passions of man, 
the relations of servant and master have been a 
source of great evil and misery. The more, 
therefore, is that religion to be valued which, 
since these relations must exist, restrains the evil 
that is incident to them, and shows how they may 
be made sources of mutual benevolence and hap- 
piness. Wherever the practical influence of re- 
ligion has not been felt, servants have generally 
been more or less treated with contempt, con- 
tumely, harshness, and oppression. They, on 
the contrary, are, from their natural corruption, 
inclined to resent authority, to indulge selfish- 
ness, and to commit fraud, either by withholding 
the just quantum of labor, or by direct theft. 
From the conflict of these evils in servants and 
in masters, too often result suspicion, cunning, 
overreaching, malignant passions, contemptuous 
and irritating speeches, the loss of principle in 
the servant, and of kind and equitable feeling on 
the part of the master. 

The direct manner in which the precepts of 
the New Testament tend to remedy these evils 
cannot but be remarked. Government in mas- 
ters, as well as in fathers, is an appointment of 
God, though differing in circumstances ; and it 
is, therefore, to be honored. « ' Let as many ser- 
vants as are under the yoke count their own 
masters worthy of all honor;" a direction which 
enjoins both respectful thoughts, and humility 
and propriety of external demeanor toward them. 



Obedience to their commands in all things lawful 
is next enforced ; which obedience is to be 
grounded on principle and conscience ; on 
"singleness of heart, as unto Christ;" thus 
serving a master with the same sincerity, the 
same desire to do the appointed work well, as is 
required of us by Christ. This service is also 
to be cheerful, and not wrung out merely by a 
sense of duty: " Not with eye-service, as men- 
pleasers :" not having respect simply to the ap- 
probation of the master, but "as the servants 
of Christ," making profession of his religion, 
" doing the will of God," in this branch of duty, 
" from the heart," with alacrity and good feeling. 
The duties of servants, stated in these brief pre- 
cepts, might easily be shown to comprehend 
every particular which can be justly required 
of persons in this station ; and the whole is en- 
forced by a sanction which could have no place 
but in a revelation from God — "Knowing that 
whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same 
shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond 
or free." Eph. vi. 5. In other words, even the 
common duties of servants, when faithfully, 
cheerfully, and piously performed, are by Christ- 
ianity made rewardable actions: "Of the Lord 
ye shall receive a reward." 

The duties of servants and masters are, how- 
ever, strictly reciprocal. Hence the apostle con- 
tinues his injunctions as to the right discharge 
of these relations, by saying, immediately after 
he had prescribed the conduct of servants, "And 
ye, masters, do the same things unto them ;" that 
is, act toward them upon the same equitable, 
conscientious, and benevolent principles as you 
exact from them. He then grounds his rules, as 
to masters, upon the great and influential prin- 
ciple, " Knowing that your Master is in heaven :" 
that you are under authority, and are account- 
able to him for your conduct to your servants. 
Thus masters are put under the eye of God, who 
not only maintains their authority, when pro- 
perly exercised, by making their servants ac- 
countable for any contempt of it, and for every 
other failure of duty, but also holds the master 
himself responsible for its just and mild exercise. 
A solemn and religious aspect is thus at once 
given to a relation which by many is considered 
as one merely of interest. When the apostle 
enjoins it on masters to "forbear threatening," 
he inculcates the treatment of servants with 
kindness of manner, with humanity, and good- 
nature; and, by consequence, also, the cultivation 
of that benevolent feeling toward persons in this 
condition which, in all rightly influenced minds, 
will flow from the consideration o\' their equality 
with themselves in the Bight of God; their equal 
share in the benefits of redemption ; their reb»- 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



lion, to us - brethren m ?.-::=:. if they are 
partakers of "like precious faith;" and their 
title to the common inheritance of heaven, "where 
all those temporary distinctions on which human 
vanity u so apt to fasten shall be done away. 
There will also not be wanting in such minds a 
. ieration of the service rendered, (for the 
benefit is mutual.) and a feeling of gratitude for 
Benriee faithfully performed, although it is com- 
pensated by wages or hire. 

T : benevolent sentiment the apostle, however, 
adds the principles of justice and equity ; 
ters, give unto yow servants that which h 
and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in 
heaven."" -who is the avenger of injustice. The 
terms just and equal, though terms of near affin- 
ity, have a somewhat different signification. To 
give that which is / ;: :: a servant is to deal 
with him according to an agreement made ; but 
to give him wrhat is equal is to deal fairly and 
honestly with him, and to return what is his due 
in reason and conscience, even when there are 
circumstances in the case which ?::::: law would 
not oblige us to take inic :_r : ■ :: : vast. 
makes our contracts the measure of our dealings 
with others, and equity our consciences." — Fleet- 
wood's Relative Duties. Equity here may 
have respect particularly to that important role 
which obliges us to do to others what we would, 
in the same circumstances, have them to do to 
us. This rule of equity has a large range in the 
treatment of servants. It excludes ail arbitrary 
and tyrannical government : it teaches masters 
to respect the strength and capacity of their 
servants: it represses rage and passion, con- 
tumely and insult ; and it directs that their labor 
shall not be so extended as not to leave proper 
time for rest, for attendance on (rod's worship, 
and. at proper seasons, for recreation. 

!Ehe religious duties of masters are also of 
great importance. 

Under the Old Testament, the servants of a 
house partook of the common benefit of the true 
religion, as appears from the case of the servants 
of Abraham, who were all brought into the cove- 
nant of circumcision ; and from the early prohi- 
fall ton of idolatrous practices in families, and, 
consequently, the maintenance of the common 
- ship of God. The same consecration of whole 
families to God we see in the New Testament, in 
the baptism of "houses," and the existence of 
domestic Churches. The practice of inculcating 
th : brae religion upon servants passed from the 
Jews to the first Christians, and followed indeed 
from the conscientious employment of the mas- 
ter's influence in favor of piety — a point to which 
we shall again advert. 

I: :m all thi3 arises the duty of instructing 



[part m. 

servants in the principles of religion ; of teach- 
ing them :: read, and furnishing them with the 
: of having them present at family 
worship ; and of conversing with them faithfully 
and affectionately respecting their best inte: 
In particular, it is to be observed that servants 
have by the law of God a right to the Sabbath, 
of which no master can, without sin, deprive 
them. They are entitled under that law to rest 
on that day : and that not only for the recreation 
of their strength and spirits, but, especially, to 
enable them to attend public worship, and to 
read the Scriptures, and pray in private. Against 
this duty all those offend who employ servants 
in works of gain ; and also those who do not so 
arrange the affairs of their households that do- 
mestic servants may be as little occupied as pos- 
sible with the affairs of the house, in order that 
they may be able religiously to use a day which 
is made as much theirs as their masters', by the 

a letter of the law of God; nor can the 
blessing of God be expected to rest upon fami- 
rheee this shocking indifference to the re- 
ligious interests of domestics, and this open dis- 
regard of the Divine command, prevail. A 
Jewish strictness in some particulars is not 
bound upon Christians ; as. for example, the 
prohibition against lighting fires. These were 
parts of the municipal, not the moral law of the 
Jews : and they have respect to a people living 
in a certain climate, and in peculiar circum- 
stances. But even these prohibitions are of use 
as teaching us self-denial, and that in all cases 
we ought to keep within the rules of neet ; 
Unnecessary occupations are clearly forbidden 
even when they do not come under the descrip- 
tion of vork for gain ; and when they are avoided, 
there will be sufficient leisure for every part of a 
family to enjoy the Sabbath as a day of rest, and 
as a day of undistracted devotion. We may here 
also advert to that heavy national offence which 
still hangs upon us. the denying to the great 
majority of our bond slaves in I Indies 

those Sabbath rights which are secured to them 
by the very religion we profess. Neither as a 
day of rest nor as a day of vrorship is this sacred 
day granted to them : and for this, our insolent 

: ntemptuous defiance of God's holy law, we 
must be held accountable. This is a considera- 
tion which ought to induce that part of the com- 
munity who retain any fear of God to be un- 
wearied in their appli cations to the legislature, 
until this great reproach, this weight of offence 
against religion and humanity, shall be taken 
away from us.* 

The employment of influence for the religious 

i note on page 658. 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



673 



benefit of servants, forms another part of the 
duty of every Christian master. This appears 
to be obligatory upon the general principle that 
every thing which can be used by us to promote 
the will of God, and to benefit others, is "a 
talent" committed to us, which we are required 
by our Lord to "occupy." It is greatly to be 
feared that this duty is much neglected among 
professedly religious masters ; that even domes- 
tic servants are suffered to live in a state of 
spiritual danger, without any means being re- 
gularly and affectionately used to bring them to 
the practical knowledge of the truth — means 
which, if used with judgment and perseverance, 
and enforced by the natural influence of- a supe- 
rior, might prove in many instances both cor- 
rective and saving. But if this duty be much 
neglected in households, it is much more disre- 
garded as to that class of servants who are em- 
ployed as day-laborers by the farmer, as journey- 
men by the master artisan, and as workmen by 
the manufacturer. More or less the master 
comes into immediate connection with this class 
of servants ; and although they are not so di- 
rectly under his control as those of his house- 
hold, nor within reach of the same instruc- 
tion, yet is he bound to discountenance vice 
among them ; to recommend their attendance on 
public worship ; to see that their children are 
sent to schools ; to provide religious help for 
them when sick ; to prefer sober and religious 
men to others ; and to pay them their wages in 
due time for market, and so early on the Satur- 
day, or on the Friday, that their families may 
not be obstructed in their preparations for at- 
tending the house of God on the Lord's day 
morning. If the religious character and bias of 
the master were thus felt by his whole establish- 
ment, and a due regard paid uniformly to justice 
and benevolence in the treatment of all in his 
employ, not only would great moral good be the 
result, but there would be reason to hope that 
the relation between employers and their work- 
men, which, in consequence of frequent disputes 
respecting wages and combinations, has been 
rendered suspicious and vexatious, would as- 
sume a character of mutual confidence and re- 
ciprocal good-will. 

Political justice respects chiefly the relation 
of subject and sovereign; a delicate branch of 
morals in a religious system introduced into the 
world under such circumstances as Christianity, j 
and which in its wisdom it has resolved into gen- ! 
eral principles of easy application, in ordinary 
circumstances. With equal wisdom it has left 
extraordinary emergencies unprovided for by 
special directions ; though even in such cases 
the path of duty is not without light reflected 
43 



upon it from the whole genius and spirit of the 
institution. 

On the origin of power, and other questions 
of government, endless controversies have been 
held, and very different theories adopted, which, 
so happily is the world exchanging government 
' by force for government by public opinion, have 
| now lost much of their interest, and require not, 
therefore, a particular examination. 

On this branch of morals, as on the others we 
have already considered, the Scriptures throw a 
light peculiar to themselves ; and the theory of 
government which they contain will be found 
perfectly accordant with the experience of the 
present and best age of the world as to practical 
government, and exhibits a perfect harmony with 
that still more improved civil condition which it 
must ultimately assume in consequence of the 
diffusion of knowledge, freedom, and virtue. 

The leading doctrine of Scripture is, that go- 
vernment is an ordinance of God. It was mani- 
festly his will that men should live in society ; 
this cannot be doubted. The very laws he has 
given to men, prescribing their relative duties, 
assume the permanent existence of social rela- 
tions, and therefore place them under regulation. 
From this fact the Divine appointment of govern- 
ment flows as a necessary consequence. A so- 
ciety cannot exist without rules or laws ; and it 
therefore follows that such laws must be upheld 
by enforcement. Hence an executive power in 
some form must arise, to guard, to judge, to re- 
ward, to punish. For if there were no execu- 
tors of laws, the laws would become a dead let- 
ter, which would be the same thing as having 
none at all ; and where there are no laws, there 
can be no society. But we are not left to infer- 
ence. In the first ages of the world, government 
was paternal, and the power of govei'nment was 
vested in parents by the express appointment of 
God. Among the Jews, rulers, judges, kings 
were also appointed by God himself ; and as for 
all other nations, the New Testament expressly 
declares that "the powers which be are or- 
dained of God." 

The origin of power is not, therefore, from 
man, but from God. It is not left as a matter 
of choice to men whether they will submit to 
be governed or not ; it is God's appointment that 
they should be subject to those powers whom he, 
in his government of the world, has placed over 
them, in all things for which he has instituted 
government, that is, that it should be " a terror 
to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well." 
Nor are they at liberty "to resist tho power," 
when employed in accomplishing such legitimate 
ends of government; nor to deny tho right, nor 
to refuse the means, even when they have the 



674 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



power to do so, by which, the supreme power 
may restrain evil, and enforce truth, righteous- 
ness, and peace. Every supreme power, we mar 
therefore conclude, is invested with full and un- 
alienable authority to govern well ; and the peo- 
ple of every state are bound, by the institution 
of God, cheerfully and thankfully to submit to 
be so governed. 

There can, therefore, be no such compact be- 
tween any parties as shall originate the right of 
government, or the duty of being governed : nor 
can any compact annul, in the least, the rightful 
authority of the supreme power to govern effi- 
ciently for the full accomplishment of the ends 
for which government was divinely appointed ; 
nor can it place any limit upon the duty of sub- 
jects to be governed accordingly. 

We may conclude, therefore, with Paley and 
others, that what is called "the social com- 
pact/' the theory of Locke and his followers on 
government, is a pure fiction. In point of fact, 
men never did originate government by mutual 
agreement : and men are all born under some 
government, and become its subjects, without 
having any terms of compact proposed to them, 
or giving any consent to understood terms, or 
being conscious at all that their assent is neces- 
sary to convey the right to govern them, or to 
impose upon themselves the obligation of sub- 
jection. The absurdities which Paley has pointed 
out as necessarily following from the theory of 
the social compact, appear to be sufficiently well 
founded : but the fatal objection is, that it makes 
government a mere creation of man, whereas 
Scripture makes it an ordinance of God : it sup- 
poses no obligation anterior to human consent ; 
whereas the appointment of God constitutes the 
obligation, and is wholly independent of human 
choice and arrangement. 

The matter of government, however, does not 
appear to be left so loose as it is represented by 
the author of the Moral and Political Philosophy. 

The ground of the subject's obligation which 
he assigns is "the will of God as collected from 
expediency." We prefer to assign the will of 
God as announced in the public law of the Scrip- 
tures ; and which manifestly establishes two 
points as general rules : 1. The positive obliga- 
tion of men to submit to government. 2. Their 
obligation to yield obedience, in all things law- 
ful, to the governments under which they live, 
as appointed by God in the order of his provi- 
dence : " the powers that be," the powers which 
actually exist, '-are ordained of God." From 
these two principles it will follow, that in the 
case of any number of men and women being 
thrown together in some desert part of the world, 
it would be their duty to marry, to institute pa- 



[PART IIL 

ternal government in their families, and to sub- 
mit to a common government, in obedience to the 
declared will of God; and in the case of persons 
born under any established government, that 
they are required to yield submission to it as an 
ordinance of God, " a power" already appointed, 
and under which they are placed in the order of 
Divine providence. 

Evident, however, as these principles are, they 
can never be pleaded in favor of oppression and 
wrong : since it is always to be remembered that 
the same Scriptures which establish these prin- 
ciples have set a sufficient number of guards 
and limits about them, and that the rights and 
duties of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. 
The manner in which they are made to harmo- 
nize with public interest and liberty will appear 
after these reciprocal duties and rights are ex- 
plained. 

The duties of the sovereign power, whatever 
its form may be, are, the enactment of just and 
equal laws ; the impartial execution of those 
laws in mercy ; the encouragement of religion, 
morality, learning, and industry ; the protection 
and sustenance of the poor and helpless : the 
maintenance of domestic peace, and, as far as 
the interests of the community will allow, of 
peace with all nations ; the faithful observance 
of all treaties ; an incessant application to the 
cares of government, without exacting more 
tribute from the people than is necessary for the 
real wants of the state, and the honorable main- 
tenance of its officers ; the appointment of in- 
ferior magistrates of probity and fitness, with a 
diligent and strict oversight of them : and finally, 
the making provision for the continued instruc- 
tion of the people in the religion of the Scrip- 
tures, which it professes to receive as a revelation 
from God, and that with such a respect to the 
rights of conscience, as shall leave all men free 
to discharge their duties to Him who is "higher 
than the highest." 

All these obligations are either plainly ex- 
pressed, or are to be inferred from such passages 
as the following : "The God of Israel said, the 
Rock of Israel spake to me. He that ruleth over 
men must he just, ruling in the fear of God ; and 
he shall be as the light of the morning when 
the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds, 
as the tender grass springeth out of the earth by 
clear shining after rain:" images which join to 
the attribute of justice a constant and diffusive 
beneficence. " Mercy and truth preserve the 
king." "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in 
judgment : thou shalt not respect the person of 
the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty ; 
but in righteousness shalt thou judge." "He 
that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous," 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



675 



that is, acquits the guilty in judgment, "him 
shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him." 
"Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the 
people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, 
hating covetousness ; and place such over them, 
and let them judge the people at all seasons." 
"Him that hath a high look and a proud heart 
■will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the 
faithful in the land, that they may dwell with 
me : he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall 
serve me. He that worketh deceit shall not dwell 
in my house : he that telleth lies shall not tarry 
in my sight." To these and many similar pas- 
sages in the Old Testament may be added, as so 
many intimations of the Divine will as to rulers, 
those patriotic and pious practices of such of the 
judges and kings of Israel as had the express 
approbation of God ; for although they may not 
apply as particular rules in all cases, they have 
to all succeeding ages the force of the general 
principles which are implied in them. The New 
Testament directions, although expressed gene- 
rally, are equally comprehensive ; and it is worthy 
of remark, that while they assert the Divine or- 
dination of " the powers that be," they explicitly 
mark out for what ends they were thus appointed, 
and allow, therefore, of no plea of Divine right 
in rulers for any thing contrary to them. " Ren- 
der unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's ;" that 
is, things which are Caesar's by public law and 
customary impost. " For rulers are not a terror 
to good ivories, but to the evil. Wilt thou not be 
afraid of the power ? Do that which is good, 
and thou shalt have praise of the same ; for he is 
the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou 
do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth 
not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of 
God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that 
doeih evil." " Submit yourselves to every ordi- 
nance of man, for the Lord's sake ; whether it 
be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, 
as unto them that are sent by him for the punish- 
ment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them 
that do well." 

In these passages, which state the legitimate 
ends of government, and limit God's ordination 
of government to them, the duties of subjects 
are partially anticipated ; but they are capable 
of a fuller enumeration. 

Subjection and obedience are the first : qualified, 
however, as we know from the example of the 
apostles, with the exceptions as to what is con- 
trary to conscience and morality. In such cases 
they obeyed not, but suffered rather. Other- 
wise the rule is, " Let every soul be subject unto 
the higher powers;" and that not merely "for 
wrath," fear of punishment, but "for conscience' 
sake," from a conviction that it is right. "For 



this cause pay ye tribute also ; for they are God's 
ministers, attending continually upon this very 
thing. Render, therefore, to all their dues, tri- 
bute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom 
custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom hon- 
or." Supplies for the necessities of govern- 
ment are therefore to be willingly and faithfully 
furnished. Ptulers are also to be treated with 
respect and reverence: "Thou shalt not speak evil 
of the ruler of thy people." They are to be 
honored both by external marks of respect, and 
by being maintained in dignity : their actions are 
to be judged of with candor and charity, and 
when questioned or blamed, this is to be done 
with moderation, and not with invective or ridi- 
cule — a mode of "speaking evil of dignities" 
which grossly offends against the Christian rule. 
This branch of our duties is greatly strength- 
ened by the enjoined duty of praying for rulers, 
a circumstance which gives an efficacy to it which 
no uninspired system can furnish. "I exhort, 
therefore, that first of all supplications, prayers, 
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for 
all men ; for kings, and for all that are in au- 
thority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable 
life in all godliness and honesty ; for this is good 
and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." 
This holy and salutary practice is founded upon 
a recognition of the ordinance of God as to gov- 
ernment ; it recognizes, also, the existing powers 
in every place as God's "ministers ;" it supposes 
that all public affairs are under Divine control ; it 
reminds men of the arduous duties and respon- 
sibility of governors ; it promotes a benevolent, 
grateful, and respectful feeling toward them ; 
and it is a powerful guard against the factious 
and seditious spirit. These are so evidently the 
principles and tendencies of this sacred custom, 
that when prayer has been used, as it sometimes 
has, to convey the feelings of a malignant, fac- 
tious, or light spirit, every well-disposed mind 
must have been shocked at so profane a mockery, 
and must have felt that such prayers "for all 
that are in authority," were anything but "good 
and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." 
Connected as these reciprocal rights and duties 
of rulers, and of their subjects, are with the 
peace, order, liberty, and welfare of society, so 
that, were they universally acted upon, nothing 
would remain to be desired for the promotion of 
its peace and welfare : it is also evident that in 
no part of the world havo they been fully ob- 
served, and, indeed, in most countries they are. 
to this day, grossly trampled upon. A question 
then arises: How far does it consist with Chris- 
tian submission to endeavor to remedy the evils 
of a government ? 

On this difficult and often controverted point 



676 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



we must proceed with caution, and with steady 
respect to the principles above drawn from the 
word of God; and that the subject may be less 
entangled, it may be proper to leave out of our 
consideration for the present all questions relat- 
ing to rival supreme powers, as in the case of a 
usurpation, and those which respect the duty of 
subjects, when persecuted by their government 
on account of their religion. 

Although government is enjoined by God, it ap- 
pears to be left to men to judge in what form its 
purposes may in certain circumstances be most 
effectually accomplished. No direction is given 
on this subject in the Scriptures. The patri- 
archal or family governments of the most ancient 
times were founded upon nature ; but when two 
or more families were joined under one head, 
either for mutual defence or for aggression, the 
[government] was one of choice, or it resulted 
from a submission effected by conquest. Here 
in many cases a compact might, and in some in- 
stances did, come in, though differing in principle 
from "the social compact" of theoretical writers ; 
and this affords the only rational way of inter- 
preting that real social compact which in some 
degree or other exists in all nations. In all 
cases where the patriarchal government was to 
be raised into a government common to many 
families, some considerable number of persons 
must have determined its form ; and they would 
have the right to place it upon such fundamental 
principles as might seem best, provided that such 
principles did not interfere with the duties made 
obligatory by God upon every sovereign power, 
and with the obligations of the subject to be 
governed by justice in mercy, and to be con- 
trolled from injuring others. Equally clear 
would be the right of the community, either en 
masse, or by their natural heads or representatives, 
to agree upon a body of laws, which should be the 
standing and published expression of the will of 
the supreme power, that so the sovereign will on 
all main questions might not be subject to con- 
stant changes and the caprice of an individual ; 
and to oblige the sovereign, as the condition of 
his office, to bind himself to observe these funda- 
mental principles and laws of the state by solemn 
oath, which has been the practice among many 
nations, and especially those of the Gothic stock. 
It follows from hence, that while there is an or- 
dination of God as to government, prior to the 
establishment of all governments, there is no 
ordination of a particular man or men to govern, 
nor any investment of families with hereditary 
right. There is no such ordination in Scripture, 
and we know that none takes place by particular 
revelation. God "putteth down one, and set- 
teth up another," in virtue of his dominion over 



[PART III. 

all things ; but he does this through men them- 
selves, as his controlled and often unconscious 
instruments. Hence, by St. Peter, in perfect 
consistency with St. Paul, the existing govern- 
ments of the world are called "ordinances of 
men." "Submit to every ordinance of man," 
or to every human creation or constitution, "for 
the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme," 
etc. Again, as the wisdom to govern with abso- 
lute truth and justice is not to be presumed to 
dwell in one man, however virtuous, so in this 
state of things, the better to secure a salutary 
administration, there would be a right to make 
provision for this also, by councils, senates, par- 
liaments, cortes, or similar institutions, vested 
with suitable powers, to forward but not to ob- 
struct the exercise of good government. And, 
accordingly, we can trace the rudiments of these 
institutions in the earliest stages of most regular 
governments. These and similar arrangements 
are left to human care, prudence, and patriot- 
ism ; and they are in perfect accordance with the 
principles of sovereign right as laid down in 
Scripture. 

It is not, however, in the forming of a new 
state that any great difficulty in morals arises. 
It comes in when either old states, originally ill 
constituted, become inadapted to the purposes 
of good government in a new and altered condi- 
tion of society, and the supreme power refuses 
to adapt itself to this new state of affairs ; or 
when, in states originally well constituted, en- 
croachments upon the public liberties take place, 
and great misrule or neglect is chargeable upon 
the executive. The question in such cases is, 
whether resistance to the will of the supreme 
power is consistent with the subjects' duty. 

To answer this, resistance must be divided 
into two kinds — the resistance of opinion, and the 
resistance of force. 

As to the first, the lawfulness, nay, even the 
duty of it, must often be allowed ; but under 
certain qualifying circumstances. As, 1. That 
this resistance of opposing and inculpating opin- 
ion is not directed against government, as such, 
however strict, provided it be just and impartial. 
2. That it is not personal against the supreme 
magistrate himself or his delegated authorities, 
but relates to public acts only. 3. That it 
springs not from mere theoretical preference 
of some new form of government to that actu- 
ally existing, so that it has in it nothing practi- 
cal. 4. That it proceeds not from a hasty, 
prejudiced, or malignant interpretation of the 
character, designs, and acts of a government. 
5. That it is not factious ; that is, not the result 
of attachment to parties, and of zeal to effect 
mere party objects, instead of the general good. 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



677 



6. That it does not respect the interests of a few 
only, or a part of the community, or the mere 
local interests of some places in opposition to 
the just interests of other places. Under such 
guards as these, the respectful but firm express- 
ion of opinion by speech, writing, petition, or 
remonstrance, is not only lawful, but is often an 
imperative duty, a duty for which hazards even 
must be run by those who endeavor to lead up 
public opinion to place itself against real en- 
croachments upon the fundamental laws of a 
state, or any serious maladministration of its 
affairs. The same conclusion may be maintained, 
under similar reserves, when the object is to im- 
prove a deficient and inadequate state of the 
supreme government. It is, indeed, especially 
requisite here that the case should be a clear 
one ; that it should be felt to be so by the great 
mass of those who with any propriety can be 
called the public ; that it should not be urged be- 
yond the necessity of the case ; that the discus- 
sion of it should be temperate ; that the change 
should be directly connected with an obvious 
public good, not otherwise to be accomplished. 
When these circumstances meet, there is mani- 
festly no opposition to government as an ordi- 
nance of God; no blamable resistance "to the 
powers that be," since it is only proposed to 
place them in circumstances the more effectually 
to fulfil the duties of their office ; nothing con- 
trary, in fact, to the original compact, the object 
of which was the public benefit, by rendering its 
government as efficient to promote the good of 
the state as possible, and which therefore neces- 
sarily supposed a liability to future modifica- 
tions, when the fairly collected public sentiment, 
through the organs by which it usually expresses 
itself as to the public weal, required it. The 
least equivocal time, however, for proposing any 
change in what might be regarded as funda- 
mental or constitutional in a form of govern- 
ment originally ill settled, would be on the de- 
mise of the sovereign, when the new stipulations 
might be offered to his successor, and very law- 
fully be imposed upon him. 

Resistance by force may be divided into two 
kinds. The first is that milder one which be- 
longs to constitutional states; that is, to those 
in which the compact between the supreme 
power and the people has been drawn out into 
express articles, or is found in well-understood 
and received principles and ancient customs, 
imposing checks upon the soveroign will, and 
surrounding with guards the public liberty. The 
application of this controlling power, which, in 
this country, is placed in a parliament, may 
have in it much of compulsion and force ; as 
when parliament rejects measures proposed by 



the ministry, who are the organs of the will of 
the sovereign ; or when it refuses the usual sup- 
plies for the army and navy until grievances are 
redressed. The proper or improper use of this 
power depends on the circumstances ; but when 
not employed factiously, nor under the influence 
of private feelings, nor in subservience to un- 
justifiable popular clamor, or to popular dema- 
gogues ; but advisedly and patriotically, in order 
to maintain the laws and customs of the kingdom, 
there is in it no infringement of the laws of 
Scripture as to the subjects' obedience. A com- 
pact exists : these are the established means of 
enforcing it ; and to them the sovereign has con- 
sented in his coronation-oath. 

The second kind is resistance by force of arms ; 
and this at least must be established before its 
lawfulness in any case, however extreme, can be 
proved, that it is so necessary to remedy some 
great public evil, that milder means are totally 
inadequate — a point which can very seldom be 
made out so clearly as to satisfy conscientious 
men. One of three cases must be supposed : 
either that the nation enjoys good institutions, 
which it is enlightened enough to value ; or that 
public liberty and other civil blessings are in 
gradual progress ; but that a part only of the 
people are interested in maintaining and advan- 
cing them, while a great body of ignorant, preju- 
diced, and corrupt persons are on the side of 
the supreme power, and ready to lend themselves 
as instruments of its misrule and despotism ; or, 
thirdly, that although a majority of the public 
are opposed to infringements on the constitution, 
yet the sovereign, in attempting to change the 
fundamental principles of his compact, employs his 
mercenary troops against his subjects, or is aided 
and abetted by some foreign influence or power. 

In the first case we have supposed, it does not 
seem possible for unjust aggressions to be suc- 
cessful. The people are enlightened and at- 
tached to their institutions ; and a prompt re- 
sistance of public opinion to the very first at- 
tempt of the supreme power must, in that case, 
be excited, and will be sufficient to arrest the 
evil. Accordingly, we find no instance of such 
a people being bereft of their liberty by their 
rulers. The danger in that state of society often 
lies on the other side. For, as there is a natural 
inclination in men in power to extend their au- 
thority, so in subjects there is a strong disposi- 
tion to resist or evade it; and when the strength 
of public opinion is known in any country, there 
are never wanting persons who, from vanity. 
faction, or interest, are ready to excite the pas- 
sions and to corrupt the feelings ol' the popu- 
lace, and to render tlieni suspicious and unruly j 
SO that the difficulty "which a true patriotism will 



678 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



often have to contend -with is, not to suppress 
but to support a just authority. Licentiousness 
in the people has often, by a reaction, destroyed 
liberty, overthrowing the powers by which alone 
it is supported. 

The second case supposes just opinions and 
feelings on the necessity of improving the civil 
institutions of a country to be in some progress ; 
that the evils of bad government are not only 
beginning to be felt, but to be extensively re- 
flected upon; and that the circumstances of a 
country are such that these considerations must 
force themselves upon the public mind, and ad- 
vance the influence of public opinion in favor of 
beneficial changes. When this is the case, the 
existing evils must be gradually counteracted 
and ultimately subdued by the natural opera- 
tion of all these circumstances. But if little 
impression has been made upon the public mind, 
resistance would be hopeless, and, even if not 
condemned by a higher principle, impolitic. The 
elements of society are not capable of being 
formed into a better system, or, if formed into 
it, cannot sustain it, since no form of govern- 
ment, however good in theory, is reducible to 
beneficial practice, without a considerable degree 
of public intelligence and public virtue. Even 
where society is partially prepared for beneficial 
changes, they may be hurried on too rapidly, 
that is, before sufficient previous impression has 
been made upon the public mind and character, 
and then nothing but mischief could result from 
a contest of force with a bad government. The 
effect would be that the leaders of each party 
would appeal to an ignorant and bad populace, 
and the issue on either side would prove inju- 
rious to the advancement of civil improvement. 
If the despotic party should triumph, then, of 
course, all patriotism would be confounded with 
rebellion, and the efforts of moderate men to 
benefit their country be rendered for a long time 
hopeless. If the party seeking just reforms 
should triumph, they could only do so by the 
aid of those whose bad passions they had in- 
flamed, as was the case in the French Revolution ; 
and then the result would be a violence which, 
it is true, overthrows one form of tyranny, but 
sets up another under which the best men perish. 
It cannot be doubted that the sound public 
opinion in France, independent of all the theo- 
ries in favor of republicanism which had been 
circulated among a people previously unpre- 
pared for political discussions, was sufficient to 
have effected, gradually, the most beneficial 
changes in its government; and that the violence 
which was excited by blind passions, threw back 
the real liberties of that country for many years. 
The same effect followed the parliamentary war 



[part in. 



excited in our own country in the reign of Charles 
the First. The resistance of arms was in neither 
case to be justified, and it led to the worst crimes. 

| The extreme case of necessity was not made out 
in either instance ; and the duty of subjects to 

j their sovereigns was grossly violated. 

The third case supposed appears to be the 
only one in which the renunciation of alle- 
giance is clearly justifiable ; because, when 
the contract of a king with his people is 
not only violated obviously, repeatedly, and in 
opposition to petition and remonstrance, but a 
mercenary soldiery is employed against those 
whom he is bound to protect, and the fear of 
foreign force and compulsion is also suspended 
over them, to compel the surrender of those 
rights which are accorded to them both by the 
laws of God and the fundamental laws of the 
kingdom, the resistance of public feeling and 
sentiment, and that of the constitutional author- 
ities, is no longer available ; and such a sove- 
reign does, in fact, lose his rights by a hostile 
denial of his duties, in opposition to his contract 
with his people. Such a case arose in this coun- 
try at the revolution of 1688 : it was one so clear 
and indubitable, as to carry with it the calm and 
deliberate sense of the vast majority of all ranks 
of society ; and the whole was stamped with the 
character of a deliberate national act, not that 
of a faction. This resistance was doubtless 
justifiable. It involved no opposition to govern- 
ment as such, but was made for the purpose 
of serving the ends of good government, and the 
preservation of the very principles of the con- 
stitution. Nor did it imply any resistance to the 
existing power in any respect in which it was 
invested with any right, either by the laws of 
God or those of the realm. It will, however, 
appear that here was a concurrence of circum- 
stances which rendered the case one which can 
very rarely occur. It was not the act of a few 
individuals ; nor of mere theorists in forms of 
government ; nor was it the result of unfounded 
jealousy or alarm ; nor was it the work of either 
the populace on the one hand, or of an aristo- 
cratic faction on the other ; but of the people, 
under their natural guides and leaders, the no- 
bility and gentry of the land ; nor were any 
private interests involved, the sole object being 
the public weal, and the maintenance of the 
laws. When such circumstances and principles 
meet, similar acts may be justified ; but in no 
instance of an equivocal character. 

The question of a subject's duty in case of the 
existence of rival supreme powers, is generally 
a very difficult one, at least for some time. 
When the question of right which lies between 
them divides a nation, he who follows his con- 



CH. IV.] 



MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



679 



scientious opinion as to this point is doubtless 
morally safe, and he ought to follow it at the 
expense of any inconvenience. But when a 
power is settled de facto in the possession of the 
government, although the right of its claim 
should remain questionable in the minds of any, 
there appears a limit beyond which no man can 
be fairly required to withhold his full allegiance. 
Where that limit lies it is difficult to say, and 
individual conscience must have considerable 
latitude ; but perhaps the general rule may be, 
that when continued resistance would be mani- 
festly contrary to the general welfare of the 
whole, it is safe to conclude that He who changes 
the "powers that be" at his sovereign plea- 
sure, has in his providence permitted or estab- 
lished a new order of things to which men are 
bound to conform. 

Whether men are at liberty to resist their law- 
ful princes when persecuted by them for con- 
science' sake, is a question which brings in addi- 
tional considerations ; because of that patience 
and meekness which Christ has enjoined upon 
his followers when they suifer for his religion. 
When persecution falls upon a portion only of 
the subjects of a country, it appears their clear 
duty to submit, rather than to engage in plots 
and conspiracies against the persecuting power — 
practices which never can consist with Christian 
moderation and truth. But when it should fall 
upon a people constituting a distinct state, though 
united politically with some other, as in the case 
of the Waldenses, then the persecution, if carried 
to the violation of liberty, life, and property, 
would involve the violation of political rights 
also, and so nullify the compact which has 



guaranteed protection to all innocent subjects. A 
national resistance on these grounds would, for the 
foregoing reasons, stand on a very different basis. 
No questions of this kind can come before a 
Christian man, however, without placing him 
under the necessity of considering the obligation 
of many duties of a much clearer character than, 
in almost any case, the duty of resistance to the 
government under which he lives can be. He 
is bound to avoid all intemperance and uncharita- 
bleness, and he is not, therefore, at liberty to be- 
come a factious man : he is forbidden to indulge 
malignity, and is restrained therefore from re- 
venge : he is taught to be distrustful of his own 
judgment, and must only admit that of the wise 
and good to be influential with him : he must 
therefore avoid all association with low and vio- 
lent men, the rabble of a state, and their design- 
ing leaders : he is bound to submission to rulers 
in all cases where a superior duty cannot be fairly 
established ; and he is warned of the danger of 
resistance "to the power," as bringing after it 
Divine "condemnation," wherever the case is 
not clear, and not fully within the principles of 
the word of God. So circumstanced, the alle- 
giance of a Christian people is secured to all 
governors, and to all governments, except in 
very extreme cases, which can very seldom arise 
in the judgment of any who respect the authority 
of the word of God; and thus this branch of 
Christian morality is established upon principles 
which at once uphold the majesty of [govern- 
ment,] and throw their shield over the liberties 
of the people ; principles which in the wisdom 
of God beautifully entwine [fidelity, ~\ freedom, 
and peace. 



G80 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[part IV. 



PART FOURTH. 

THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

The Church of Christ, in its largest sense, 
consists of all "who have been baptized in the 
name of Christ, and who thereby make a visible 
profession of faith in his Divine mission, and in 
all the doctrines taught by him and his inspired 
apostles. In a stricter sense, it consists of those 
"who are vitally united to Christ, as the members 
of the body to the head, and ■who, being thus 
imbued with spiritual life, walk no longer '"'after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit." Taken in either 
view, it is a visible society, bound to observe the 
laws of Christ, its sole Head and Lord. Visible 
fellowship with this Church is the duty of all 
who profess faith in Christ ; for in this, in part, 
consists that " confession of Christ before men" 
on which so much stress is laid in the discourses 
of our Lord. It is obligatory on all who are 
convinced of the truth of Christianity to be bap- 
tized ; and upon all thus baptized frequently to 
partake of the Lord's Supper, in order to testify 
their continued faith in that great and distinguish- 
ing doctrine of the religion of Christ, the re- 
demption of the world by the sacrificial effusion 
of his blood, both of which suppose union with 
his Church. The ends of this fellowship or asso- 
ciation are, to proclaim our faith in the doctrine 
of Christ as Divine in its origin, and necessary 
to salvation : to offer public prayers and thanks- 
givings to God through Christ, as the sole Media- 
tor : to hear God's word explained and enforced ; 
and to place ourselves under that discipline 
which consists in the enforcement of the laws 
of Christ (which are the rules of the society 
called the Church) upon the members, not 
merely by general exhortation, but by kind 
oversight, and personal injunction and admoni- 
tion of its ministers. All these flow from the 
original obligation to avow our faith in Christ, 
and our love to him. 

The Church of Christ being, then, a visible 



and permanent society, bound to observe certain 
rites, and to obey certain rules, the existence of 
government in it is necessarily supposed. All 
religious rites suppose order, all order direc- 
tion and control, and these a directive and 
controlling power. Again, all laws are nuga- 
tory without enforcement, in the present mixed 
and imperfect state of society ; and all enforce- 
ment supposes an executive. If baptism be 
the door of admission into the Church, some 
must judge of the fitness of the candidates, and 
administrators of the rite must be appointed; if 
the Lord's Supper must be partaken of, the 
; times and the mode are to be determined, the 
qualifications of communicants judged of, and 
1 the administration placed in suitable hands ; if 
: worship must be social and public, here again 
1 there must be an appointment of times, an order, 
i and an administration; if the word of God is to 
! be read and preached, then readers and preach- 
ers are necessary ; if the continuance of any one 
I in the fellowship of Christians be conditional 
upon good conduct, so that the purity and credit 
' of the Church may be guarded, then the power 
I of enforcing discipline must be lodged some- 
1 where. Thus government flows necessarily from 
1 the very nature of the institution of the Christ- 
ian Church ; and since this institution has the 
! authority of Christ and his apostles, it is not to 
be supposed that its government was left unpro- 
vided for ; and if they have in fact made such a 
provision, it is no more a matter of mere option 
with Christians whether they will be subject to 
government in the Church, than it is optional 
with them to confess Christ by becoming its 
members. 

The nature of this government, and the per- 
sons to whom it is committed, are both points 
which we must briefly examine by the light of 
the Holy Scriptures. 

As to the first, it is wholly spiritual. " My 
kingdom," says our Lord, "is not of this world." 
The Church is a society founded upon faith, and 
united by mutual love for the personal edification 



CH. I.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



681 



of its members in holiness, and for the religious 
benefit of the world. The nature of its govern- 
ment is thus determined : it is concerned only with 
spiritual objects. It cannot employ force to 
compel men into its pale, for the only door of 
the Church is faith, to which there can be no 
compulsion — "he that believeth and is baptized" 
becomes a member. It cannot inflict pains and 
penalties upon the disobedient and refractory, 
like civil governments ; for the only punitive 
discipline authorized in the New Testament is 
comprised in "admonition," "reproof," "sharp 
rebukes," and, finally, "excision from the so- 
ciety." The last will be better understood if we 
consider the special relations in which true 
Christians stand to each other, and the duties 
resulting from them. They are members of one 
body, and are therefore bound to tenderness and 
sympathy; they are the conjoint instructors of 
others, and are therefore to strive to be of "the 
same judgment ; " they are brethren, and they are to 
love one another, as such, that is, with an affection 
more special than that general good- will which 
they are commanded to bear to all mankind; 
they are therefore to seek the intimacy of friend- 
ly society among themselves, and, except in the 
ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they 
are bound to keep themselves separate from the 
world; they are enjoined to do good unto all 
men, but "specially unto them who are of the 
household of faith ;" and they are forbidden "to 
eat" at the Lord's table with immoral persons, 
that is, with those who, although they continue 
their Christian profession, dishonor it by their 
practice. With these relations of Christians to 
each other and to the world, and their corre- 
spondent duties, before our minds, we may easily 
interpret the nature of that extreme discipline 
which is vested in the Church. "Persons who 
will not hear the Church" are to be held "as 
heathen men and publicans," as those who are 
not members of it : that is, they are to be sepa- 
rated from it and regarded as of " the world," 
quite out of the range of the above-mentioned 
relations of Christians to each other, and their 
correspondent duties; but still, like "heathen 
men and publicans," they are to be the objects 
of pity and general benevolence. Nor is this 
extreme discipline to be hastily inflicted before 
"a first and second admonition," nor before 
those who are "spiritual" have attempted "to 
restore a brother overtaken by a fault;" and 
when the "wicked person" is "put away," still 
the door is to be kept open for his reception 
again upon repentance. The true excommuni- 
cation of the Christian Church is thorefore a 
merciful and considerate separation of an incor- 
rigible offender from the body of Christians, 



without any infliction of civil pains or penalties. 
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw 
yourselves from every brother that walketh dis- 
orderly, and not after the tradition which he 
received of us." 2 Thess. iii. 6. "Purge 
out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be 
a new lump." 1 Cor. v. 7. "But now I have 
written unto you not to keep company, if any man 
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covet- 
ous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or 
an extortioner: with such a one, no, not to eat." 
1 Cor. v. 11. This, then, is the moral disci- 
pline which is imperative upon the Church of 
Christ, and its government is criminally defect- 
ive whenever it is not enforced. On the other 
hand, the disabilities and penalties which esta- 
blished Churches in different places have con- 
nected with these sentences of excommunica- 
tion, have no countenance at all in Scripture, 
and are wholly inconsistent with the spiritual 
character and ends of the Christian association. 

As to the' second point, the persons to whom 
the government of the Church is committed, it is 
necessary to consider the composition, so to 
speak, of the primitive Church, as stated in the 
New Testament. 

A full enunciation of these offices we find in 
Ephesians iv. 11 : "And he gave some apostles; 
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and 
some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting 
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for 
the edifying of the body of Christ." Of these, 
the office of apostle is allowed by all to have 
been confined to those immediately commissioned 
by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles and 
of his resurrection from the dead, and to reveal 
the complete system of Christian doctrine and 
duty ; confirming their extraordinary mission by 
miracles wrought by themselves. If by "pro- 
phets" we are to understand persons who fore- 
told future events, then the office was, from its 
very nature, extraordinary, and the gift of pro- 
phecy has passed away with the other miracu- 
lous endowments of the first age of Christianity. 
If, with others, we understand that theso pro- 
phets were extraordinary teachers, raised up 
until the Churches were settled under permanent 
qualified instructors, still the office was tempo- 
rary. The "evangelists" are generally under- 
stood to be assistants of the apostles, who acted 
under their especial authority and direction. 
Of this number were Timothy and Titus ; and as 
the Apostle Paul directed them to ordain bishops 
or presbyters in the several Churches. hut gfttd 
them no authority to ordain successors to them- 
selves in their particular office as ovangolists, it 
is clear that the evangelists must also bo reck- 



682 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



oned among the number of extraordinary and 
temporary ministers suited to the first age of 
Christianity. Whether by "pastors and teach- 
ers" two offices be meant, or one, has been dis- 
puted. The change in the mode of expression 
seems to favor the latter view, and so the text 
is interpreted by St. Jerome and St. Augustin ; 
but the point is of little consequence. A pastor 
was a teacher; although every teacher might 
not be a pastor, but in many cases be confined to 
the office of subordinate instruction, whether as 
an expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a 
more private instructor of those who as yet 
were unacquainted with the first principles of 
the gospel of Christ. The term pastor implies 
the duties both of instruction and of government, 
of feeding and of ruling the flock of Christ; 
and, as the presbyters or bishops were ordained 
in the several churches, both by the apostles and 
evangelists, and rules are left by St. Paul as 
to their appointment, there can be no doubt 
that these are the "pastors" spoken of in the 
epistle to the Ephesians, and that they were de- 
signed to be the permanent ministers of the 
Church ; and that with them both the govern- 
ment of the Church and the performance of its 
leading religious services were deposited. Dea- 
cons had the charge of the gifts and offerings 
for charitable purposes, although, as appears 
from Justin Martyr, not in every instance ; for 
he speaks of the weekly oblations as being de- 
posited with the chief minister, and distributed 
by him. 

Whether bishops and presbyters be designa- 
tions of the same office, or these appellatives 
express two distinct sacred orders, is a subject 
which has been controverted by Episcopalians 
and Presbyterians with much warmth ; and who- 
ever would fully enter into their arguments from 
Scripture and antiquity, must be referred to 
this controversy, which is too large to be here 
more than glanced at. The argument drawn by 
the Presbyterians from the promiscuous use of 
these terms in the New Testament to prove that 
the same order of ministers is expressed by them, 
appears incontrovertible. When St. Paul, for 
instance, sends for the "elders," or presbyters, 
of the Church of Ephesus to meet him at 
Miletus, he thus charges them : "Take heed unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock over the which 
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," or 
bishops. That here the elders or presbyters are 
called "bishops," cannot be denied; and the 
very office assigned to them, to "feed the Church 
of God," and the injunction, to "take heed to 
the flock," show that the office of elder or pres- 
byter is the same as that of "pastor," in the pas- 
sage just quoted from the epistle to the Ephe- 



[PART IV. 



sians. St. Paul directs Titus to "ordain elders 
[presbyters] in every city," and then adds, as a 
directory of ordination, " a bishop must be blame- 
les," etc., plainly marking the same office by 
these two convertible appellations. "Bishops 
and deacons" are the only classes of ministers 
addressed in the epistle to the Philippians ; and 
if the presbyters were not understood to be 
included under the term "bishops," the omis- 
sion of any notice of this order of ministers is 
not to be accounted for. As the apostles, when 
not engaged in their own extraordinary vocation, 
appear to have filled the office of stated ministers 
in those churches in which they occasionally 
resided for considerable periods of time, they 
sometimes called themselves presbyters. "The 
elder [presbyter] unto the elect lady." 2 John 
i. 1. " The elders [presbyters] which are among 
you, I exhort, who am also an elder," [pres- 
byter;] and from what follows, the highest 
offices of teaching and government in the Church 
are represented as vested in the presbyters. 
"Feed the flock of God which is among ypu, 
taking the oversight thereof." There seems, 
therefore, to be the most conclusive evidence 
from the New Testament, that after the extra- 
ordinary ministry vested in apostles, prophets, 
and evangelists, as mentioned by St. Paul, had 
ceased, the feeding and oversight, that is, the 
teaching and government of the churches, de- 
volved upon an order of men indiscriminately 
called "pastors," "presbyters," and "bishops," 
the two latter names growing into most frequent 
use ; and with this the testimony of the apostolical 
fathers, so far as their writings are acknow- 
ledged to be free from later interpolations, 
agrees. 

It is not, indeed, to be doubted that, at a very 
early period, in some instances, probably from the 
time of the apostles themselves, a distinction arose 
between bishops and presbyters ; and the whole 
strength of the cause of the Episcopalians lies in 
this fact. Still, this gives not the least sanction 
to the notion of bishops being a superior order 
of ministers to presbyters, invested, in virtue of 
that order, and by Divine right, with powers of 
government both over presbyters and people, 
and possessing exclusively the authority of or- 
daining to the sacred offices of the Church. As 
little, too, will that ancient distinction be found 
to prove any thing in favor of diocesan episco- 
pacy, which is of still later introduction. 

Could it be made clear that the power of 
ordaining to the ministry was given to bishops 
to the exclusion of presbyters, that would, 
indeed, go far to prove the former a distinct and 
superior order of ministers in their original 
appointment. But there is no passage in the 



CH. I.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



683 



New Testament -which gives this power at all to 
bishops, as thus distinguished from presbyters ; 
while all the examples of ordination which it 
exhibits are confined to apostles, to evangelists, 
or to presbyters, in conjunction with them. 
St. Paul, in 2 Tim. i. 6, says, "Wherefore I put 
thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift 
of God which is in thee, by the putting on of 
my hands ;" but in 1 Tim. iv. 14, he says, 
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was 
given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of 
the hands of the presbytery ;" which two pas- 
sages, referring, as they plainly do, to the same 
event, the setting apart of Timothy for the 
ministry, show that the presbytery were asso- 
ciated with St. Paul in the office of ordination, 
and further prove that the exclusive assumption 
of this power, as by Divine right, by bishops, is 
an aggression upon the rights of presbyters, for 
which not only can no scriptural authority be 
pleaded, but which is in direct opposition to it. 

The early distinction made between bishops 
and presbyters may be easily accounted for, 
without allowing this assumed distinction of 
order. In some of the churches mentioned in 
the Acts of the Apostles, the apostles ordained 
several elders or presbyters, partly to supply the 
present need, and to provide for the future in- 
crease of believers, as it is observed by Clemens in 
his epistle. Another reason would also urge this : 
Before the building of spacious edifices for the 
assemblies of the Christians living in one city, and 
in its neighborhood, in common, their meetings 
for public worship must necessarily have been 
held in different houses or rooms obtained for 
the purpose ; and to each assembly an elder 
would be requisite for the performance of wor- 
ship. That these elders or presbyters had the 
power of government in the churches cannot be 
denied, because it is expressly assigned to them 
in Scripture. It was inherent in their pastoral 
office; and "the elders that rule well" were to 
be " counted worthy of double honor." A num- 
ber of elders, therefore, being ordained by the 
apostles to one church, gave rise to the coetus 
presbyter or um, is which assembly the affairs of 
the Church were attended to, and measures taken 
for the spread of the gospel, by the aid of the 
common counsel and efforts of the whole. This 
meeting of presbyters would naturally lead to 
the appointment, whether by seniority or by 
election, of one to preside over the proceedings 
of this assembly for the sake of order ; and to 
him was given the title of angel of the church, 
and bishop by way of eminence. Tho latter 
title came in time to be exclusively used of the 
presiding elder, because of that special oversiyht 
imposed upon hiin by his office, and which, as 



churches were raised up in the neighborhood of 
the larger cities, would also naturally be ex- 
tended over them. Independently of his fellow- 
presbyters, however, he did nothing. 

The whole of this arrangement shows that in 
those particulars in which they were left free by 
the Scriptures, the primitive Christians adopted 
that arrangement for the government of the 
Church which promised to render it most effi- 
cient for the maintenance of truth and piety ; 
but they did not at this early period set up 
that unscriptural distinction of order between 
bishops and presbyters, which obtained after- 
ward. Hence Jerome, even in the fourth cen- 
tury, contends against this doctrine, and says, 
that before there were parties in religion, 
churches were governed communi consilio presby- 
terorum ; but that afterward it became a univer- 
sal practice, founded upon experience of its 
expediency, that one of the presbyters should be 
chosen by the rest to be the head, and that the 
care of the church should be committed to him. 
He therefore exhorts presbyters to remember 
that they are subject by the custom of the church 
to him that presides over them, and reminds 
bishops that they are greater than presbyters 
rather by custom than by the appointment of the 
Lord, and that the church ought still to be 
governed in common. The testimony of anti- 
quity also shows that after episcopacy had very 
greatly advanced its claims, the presbyters con- 
tinued to be associated with the bishop in the 
management of the affairs of the church. 

Much light is thrown upon the constitution of 
the primitive churches, by recollecting that they 
were formed very much upon the model of the 
Jewish synagogues. We have already seen that 
the mode of public worship in the primitive 
Church was taken from the synagogue service ; 
and so, also, was its arrangement of offices. 
Each synagogue had its rulers, elders, or pres- 
byters, of whom one was the angel of the church, 
or minister of the synagogue, who superintended 
the public service, directed those that read the 
Scriptures; and offered up the prayers, and 
blessed the people. The president of the council 
of elders or rulers was called, by way of emi- 
nence, the "ruler of the synagogue;" and in 
some places, as Acts xiii. 15, we read of those 
"rulers" in the plural number — a sufficient proof 
that one was not elevated in order above the rest. 
The angel of the church, and the minister of the 
synagogue, might be the same as he who was 
invested with the office of president, or those 
offices might bo held by others of the elders. 
Lightfoot, indeed, states that, the rulers in each 
Synagogue were three, while the presbyters or 
elders were ten. To this eouuoil of grave ami 



684 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



wise men the affairs of the synagogue, both as 
to worship and discipline, were committed. In 
the synagogue they sat by themselves in a semi- 
circle, and the people before them, face to face. 
This was the precise form in which the bishop 
and presbyters used to sit in the primitive 
churches. The description of the worship of 
the synagogue by a Jewish rabbi, and that of 
the primitive Church by early Christian writers, 
presents an obvious correspondence. "The 
elders," says Maimonides, "sit with their faces 
toward the people, and their backs to the place 
where the law is deposited ; and all the people 
sit rank before rank: so the faces of all the 
people are toward the sanctuary, and toward the 
elders ; and when the minister of the sanctuary 
standeth up to prayer, he standeth with his face 
toward the sanctuary, as do the rest of the 
people." In the same order the first Christians 
sat with their faces toward the bishops and pres- 
byters, first to hear the Scriptures read by the 
proper reader, "then," says Justin Martyr, "the 
reader sitting down, the president of the assem- 
bly stands up and makes a sermon of instruction 
and exhortation; after this is ended, we all 
stand up to prayers ; prayers being ended, the 
bread, wine, and water are all brought forth; 
then the president again praying and praising 
to his utmost ability, the people testify their con- 
sent by saying Amen." [Apol. 2.) "Here we 
have the Scriptures read by one appointed for 
that purpose, as in the synagogue ; after which 
follows the word of exhortation by the president 
of the assembly, who answers to the minister 
of the synagogue ; after this, public prayers are 
performed by the same person ; then the solemn 
acclamation of Amen by the people, which was 
the undoubted practice of the synagogue." 
(Stillingfleet's Irenicum.) Ordination of pres- 
byters or elders is also from the Jews. Their 
priests were not ordained, but succeeded to their 
office by birth ; but the rulers and elders of the 
synagogue received ordination by imposition of 
hands and prayer. 

Such was the model which the apostles followed 
in providing for the future regulation of the 
churches they had raised up. They took it, not 
from the temple and its priesthood, for that was 
typical, and was then passing away. But they 
found in the institution of synagogues a plan 
admirably adapted to the simplicity and purity 
of Christianity, one to which some of the first 
converts in most places were accustomed, and 
which was capable of being applied to the new 
dispensation without danger of Judaizing. It 
secured the assembling of the people on the Sab- 
bath, the reading of the Scriptures, the preach- 
ing of sermons, and the offering of public prayer 



[PART rv. 

; and thanksgiving. It provided too for the go- 
vernment of the Church by a council of presby- 
ters, ordained solemnly to their office by impo- 
sition of hands and prayer ; and it allowed of 
that presidency of one presbyter chosen by the 
others, which was useful for order and for unity, 
and by which age, piety, and gifts might pre- 
serve their proper influence in the Church. The 
advance from this state of scriptural episcopacy 
to episcopacy under another form was the work 
of a later age. 

When the gospel made its way into towns and 
villages, the concerns of the Christians in these 
places naturally fell under the cognizance and 
direction of the bishops of the neighboring cities. 
Thus dioceses were gradually formed, compre- 
hending districts of country, of different extent. 
These dioceses were originally called Trapouiiai, 
parishes, and the word dtoltcTjoic, diocese, was not 
used in its modern sense till at least the fourth 
century ; and when we find Ignatius describing 
it as the duty of a bishop " to speak to each 
member of the church separately, to seek out 
all by name, even the slaves of both sexes, and 
to advise every one of the flock in the affair of 
marriage," dioceses, as one observes, must have 
been very limited, or the labor inconceivably 
great. 

"As Christianity increased and overspread all 
parts, and especially the cities of the empire, it 
was found necessary yet further to enlarge the 
episcopal office ; and as there was commonly a 
bishop in every great city, so in the metropolis, 
(as the Romans called it,) the mother city of 
every province, (wherein they had courts of civil 
judicature,) there was an archbishop or a me- 
tropolitan, who had ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
over all the churches within that province. He 
was superior to all the bishops within those 
limits ; to him it belonged to ordain or to ratify 
the elections and ordinations of all the bishops 
within his province, insomuch that without his 
confirmation they were looked upon as null and 
void. Once at least every year he was to sum- 
mon the bishops under him to a synod, to inquire 
into and direct the ecclesiastical affairs within 
that province ; to inspect the lives and manners, 
the opinions and principles of his bishops ; to 
admonish, reprove, and suspend them that were 
disorderly and irregular ; if any controversies or 
contentions happened between any of them, he 
was to have the hearing and determination of them ; 
and, indeed, no matter of moment was done within 
the whole province, without first consulting him 
in the case. When this office of metropolitan first 
began, I find not ; only this we are sure of, that 
the council of Nice, settling the just rights and 
privileges of metropolitan bishops, speaks of them 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. I.] 

as a thing of ancient date, ushering in the canon 
with an upxala tdrj KpaTeiro), Let ancient customs 
still take place. The original of the institution 
seems to have been partly to comply with the 
people's occasions, who oft resorted to the metro- 
polis for dispatch of their affairs, and so might 
fitly discharge their civil and ecclesiastical both at 
once ; and partly because of the great confluence 
of people to that city ; that the bishop of it 
might have preeminence above the rest, and the 
honor of the Church bear some proportion to that 
of the State. 

"After this sprung up another branch of the 
episcopal office, as much superior to that of me- 
tropolitans, as theirs was to ordinary bishops ; 
these were called primates and patriarchs, and 
had jurisdiction over many provinces. For the 
understanding of this, it is necessary to know, 
that when Christianity came to be fully settled 
in the world, they contrived to model the external 
government of the Church, as near as might be, 
to the civil government of the Roman empire : 
the parallel is most exactly drawn by an ingeni- 
ous person of our own nation ; the sum of it is 
this: The whole empire of Rome was divided 
into thirteen dioceses, (so they called those divi- 
sions ; ) these contained about one hundred and 
twenty provinces, and every province several 
cities. Now, as in every city there was a temporal 
magistrate for the executing of justice, and keep- 
ing the peace, both for that city and the towns 
round about it, so was there also a bishop for 
spiritual order and government, whose jurisdic- 
tion was of like extent and latitude. In every 
province there was a proconsul or president, 
whose seat was usually at the metropolis, or chief 
city of the province ; and hither all inferior cities 
came for judgment in matters of importance. 
And in proportion to this there was in the same 
city an archbishop or metropolitan, for matters of 
ecclesiastical concernment. Lastly, in every dio- 
cese the emperors had their vicarii, or lieutenants, 
who dwelt in the principal city of the diocese, 
where all imperial edicts were published, and 
from whence they were sent abroad into the se- 
veral provinces, and where was the chief tribunal 
where all causes not determinable elsewhere 
were decided. And, to answer this, there was 
in the same city a primate, to whom the last de- 
termination of all appeals from all the provinces 
in differences of the clergy, and the sovereign 
care of all the diocese for sundry points of spi- 
ritual government, did belong. This, in short, 
is the sum of the account which that learned man 
gives of this matter. So that the patriarch, as 
superior to the metropolitans, was -to have under 
his jurisdiction not any one single province, but 
a wholo diocese, (in the old Roman notion of that 



685 



word,) consisting of many provinces. To him be- 
longed the ordination of all the metropolitans 
that were under him, as also the summoning 
them to councils, the correcting and reforming 
the misdemeanors they were guilty of ; and from 
his judgment and sentence, in things properly 
within his cognizance, there lay no appeal. To 
this I shall only add what Salmasius has noted, 
that as the diocese that was governed by the 
vicarius had many provinces under it, so the prce- 
fectus prcetorio had several dioceses under him ; 
and in proportion to this, probable it was that 
patriarchs were first brought in, who, if not su- 
perior to primates in jurisdiction and power, were 
yet in honor, by reason of the dignity of those 
cities where their sees were fixed, as at Rome, 
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusa- 
lem.^ — Cave's Primitive Christianity. 

Thus diocesan bishops, metropolitans, pri- 
mates, patriarchs, and finally the pope, came in, 
which offices are considered as corruptions or 
improvements ; as dictated by the necessities of 
the Church, or as instances of worldly ambition; 
as of Divine right, or from Satan — according to 
the different views of those who have written on 
such subjects. As to them all it may, however, 
be said, that, so far as they are pleaded for as of 
Divine right, they have no support from the New 
Testament; and if they are placed upon the 
only ground on which they can be reasonably 
discussed, that of necessity and good polity, they 
must be tried by circumstances, and their claims 
of authority be so defined that it may be known 
how far they are compatible with those prin- 
ciples with which the New Testament abounds, 
although it contains no formal plan of Church 
government. The only scriptural objection to 
episcopacy, as it is understood in modern times, 
is its assumption of superiority of order, of an 
exclusive right to govern the pastors as well as 
the flock, and to ordain to the Christian ministry. 
These exclusive powers are by the New Testa- 
ment nowhere granted to bishops in distinction 
from presbyters. The government of pastors as 
well as people was at first in the assembly of 
presbyters, who were individually accountable 
to that ruling body, and that whether they had 
a president or not. So also as to ordination : it 
was a right in each, although used by several to- 
gether, for better security ; and even when the 
presence of a bishop came to be thought neces- 
sary to the validity of ordination, the presbyters 
were not excluded. 

As for the argument from tho succession of 
bishops from the times of tho apostles, could the 
fact be made out, it would only trace diooesaa 
bishops to the bishops of parishes ; those, to the 
bishops of single churches ; and bishops of a 



686 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



supposed superior order, to bishops who never 
thought themselves more than presiding presby- 
ters, primi inter pares. This therefore "would only 
show that an unscriptural assumption of distinct 
orders has been made, which that succession, if 
established, would refute. But the succession 
itself is imaginary. Even Epiphanius, a bishop 
of the fourth century, gives this account of 
things, " that the apostles were not able to settle 
all things at once. But according to the number 
of believers, and the qualifications for the differ- 
ent offices which those whom they found appeared 
to possess, they appointed in some places only a 
bishop and deacons ; in others presbyters and 
deacons ; in others a bishop, presbyters, and 
deacons:" a statement fatal to the argument 
from succession. As for the pretended catalogues 
of bishops of the different churches from the 
days of the apostles, exhibited by some eccle- 
siastical writers, they are filled up by forgeries 
and inventions of later times. Eusebius, more 
honest, begins his catalogue with declaring that 
it is not easy to say who were the disciples of 
the apostles that were appointed to feed the 
churches which they planted, excepting only those 
whom we read of in the writings of St. Paul. 

Whether episcopacy may not be a matter of 
prudential regulation, is another question. We 
think it often may ; and that churches are quite 
at liberty to adopt this mode, provided they 
maintain St. Jerome's distinction, that "bishops 
are greater than presbyters rather by custom 
than by appointment of the Lord, and that still 
the Church ought to be governed in common," 
that is, by bishops and presbyters united. It 
was on this ground that Luther placed episco- 
pacy — as useful, though not of Divine right ; it 
was by admitting this liberty in Churches, that 
Calvin and other divines of the Reformed 
Churches allowed episcopacy and diocesan 
Churches to be lawful, there being nothing to 
forbid such an arrangement in Scripture, when 
placed on the principle of expediency. Some 
divines of the English Church have chosen to 
defend its episcopacy wholly upon this ground, 
as alone tenable ; and, admitting that it is safest 
to approach as near as possible to primitive prac- 
tice, have proposed the restoration of presbyters 
as a senate to the bishop, the contraction of dio- 
ceses, the placing of bishops in all great towns, 
and the holding of provincial synods : thus 
raising the presbyters to their original rank, as 
the bishop's " compresbyters" as Cyprian him- 
self calls them, both in government and in ordi- 
nations. 

As to that kind of episcopacy which trenches 
upon no scriptural principle, much depends upon 
circumstances, and the forms in which Christian 



[PART IV. 

I Churches exist. When a church composes but 
j one congregation, the minister is unquestionably 
a scriptural bishop ; but he is, and can be, only 
bishop of the flock, episcopus gregis. Of this 
kind, it appears from the extract given above 
from Epiphanius, were some of the primitive 
Churches, existing, probably, in the smaller and 
more remote places. Where a number of pres- 
byters were ordained to one Church, these would, 
in their common assembly, have the oversight 
and government of each other as well as of the 
people; and, in this their collective capacity, 
they would be episcopi gregis et pastorum. In this 
manner, episcopacy, as implying the oversight 
and government both of ministers and their 
flocks, exists in Presbyterian Churches, and in 
all others, by whatever name they are called, 
where ministers are subject to the discipline of 
assemblies of ministers who admit to the minis- 
try by joint consent, and censure or remove 
those who are so appointed. When the ancient 
presbyteries elected a bishop, he might remain, 
as he appears to have done for some time, the 
mere president of the assembly of presbyters, 
and their organ of administration ; or be consti- 
tuted, as afterward, a distinct governing power, 
although assisted by the advice of his presbyters. 
He was then in person an episcopus gregis et pas- 
torum, and his official powers gave rise at length 
to the unfounded distinction of superior order. 
But abating this false principle, even diocesan 
episcopacy may be considered as in many pos- 
sible associations of Churches throughout a pro- 
vince, or a whole country, as an arrangement in 
some circumstances of a wise and salutary na- 
ture. Nor do the evils which arose in the Church 
of Christ appear so attributable to this form of 
government as to that too intimate connection 
of the Church with the State, which gave to the 
former a political character, and took it from 
under the salutary control of public opinion — an 
evil greatly increased by the subsequent destruc- 
tion of religious liberty, and the coercive inter- 
ferences of the civil magistrate. 

At the same time, it may be very well ques- 
tioned whether any presbyters could lawfully 
surrender into the hands of a bishop their own 
rights of government and ordination without that 
security for their due administration which arises 
from the accountability of the administrator. 
That these are rights which it is not imperative 
upon the individual possessing them to exercise 
individually, appears to have the judgment of 
the earliest antiquity, because the assembly of 
presbyters, which was probably coexistent with 
the ordination of several presbyters to one 
Church by the apostles, necessarily placed the 
exercise of the office of each under the direction 



CH. I.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



687 



and control of all. When, therefore, a bishop 
was chosen by the presbyters, and invested with 
the government and the power of granting or- 
ders, so long as the presbyters remained his 
council, and nothing was done but by their con- 
currence, they were still parties to the mode in 
which their own powers were exercised, and were 
justifiable in placing the administration in the 
hands of one who was still dependent upon them- 
selves. In this way they probably thought that 
their own powers might be most efficiently and 
usefully exercised. Provincial and national sy- 
nods or councils, exercising a proper superin- 
tendence over bishops when made even more in- 
dependent of their presbyters than was the case 
in the best periods of the primitive Church, 
might also, if meeting frequently and regularly, 
and as a part of an ecclesiastical system, afford 
the same security for good administration, and 
might justify the surrender of the exercise of 
their powers by the presbyters. But when that 
surrender was formerly made, or is at any time 
made now in the constitution of Churches, to 
bishops, or to those bearing a similar office how- 
ever designated, without security and control, 
either by making that office temporary and elec- 
tive, or by the constitution of synods or assem- 
blies of the ministers of a large and united body 
of Christians for the purpose of supreme govern- 
ment, an office is created which has not only no 
countenance in Scripture, that of a bishop inde- 
pendent of presbyters, but one which implies an 
unlawful surrender of those powers, on the part 
of the latter, with which they were invested, not 
for their own sakes, but for the benefit of the 
Church ; and which they could have no authority 
to divest themselves of and to transfer, without 
retaining the power of counselling and controlling 
the party charged with the administration of 
them. In other words, presbyters have a right, 
under proper regulations, to appoint another to 
administer for them, or to consent to such an 
arrangement when they find it already existing ; 
but they have no power to divest themselves of 
these rights and duties absolutely. If these 
principles be sound, modern episcopacy, in many 
Churches, is objectionable in other respects than 
as it assumes an unscriptural distinction of 
order. 

The following is a liberal concession on the 
subject of episcopacy, from a strenuous de- 
fender of that form of government as it exists 
in the Church of England : — 

" It is not contended that the bishops, priests, 
and deacons of England are at present precisely 
the same that bishops, presbyters, and deacons 
were in Asia Minor seventeen hundred years 
ago. We only maintain that there have always 



been bishops, priests, and deacons in the Christ- 
ian Church since the days of the apostles, with 
different powers and functions, it is allowed, in 
different countries and at different periods ; but 
the general principles and duties which have re- 
spectively characterized these clerical orders, 
have been essentially the same at all times and 
in all places ; and the variations which they have 
undergone have only been such as have ever be- 
longed to all persons in public situations, whether 
civil or ecclesiastical, and which are indeed in- 
separable from every thing in which mankind 
are concerned in this transitory and fluctuating 
world. 

" I have thought it right to take this general 
view of the ministerial office, and to make these 
observations upon the clerical orders subsisting 
in this kingdom, for the purpose of pointing out 
the foundation and principles of Church author- 
ity, and of showing that our ecclesiastical esta- 
blishment is as nearly conformable as change of 
circumstances will permit, to the practice of the 
primitive Church. But, though I flatter myself 
that I have proved episcopacy to be an apostoli- 
cal institution, yet I readily acknowledge that 
there is no precept in the New Testament which 
commands that every Church should be governed 
by bishops. No Church can exist without some 
government; but though there must be rules 
and orders for the proper discharge of the offices 
of public worship, though there must be fixed 
regulations concerning the appointment of min- 
isters, and though a subordination among them 
is expedient in the highest degree, yet it does not 
follow that all these things must be precisely the 
same in every Christian country: they may vary 
with the other varying circumstances of human 
society, with the extent of a country, the man- 
ners of its inhabitants, the nature of its civil 
government, and many other peculiarities which 
might be specified. As it has not pleased our 
Almighty Father to prescribe any particular form 
of civil government for the security of temporal 
comforts to his rational creatures, so neither has 
he prescribed any particular form of ecclesiasti- 
cal polity as absolutely necessary to the attain- 
ment of eternal happiness. But he has, in the 
most explicit terms, enjoined obedience to all 
governors, whether civil or ecclesiastical, and 
whatever may be their denomination, as essential 
to the character of a true Christian. Thus the 
gospel only lays down general principle?, and 
leaves the application of them to men oa free 
agents." — Bishop Tomline's Elements. 

Bishop Tomlinc, however, and the high Epis- 
copalians of the Church of England, contend for 
an original distinction in the office ind order of 
bishops and presbyters, in which notion they are 



688 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART IV. 



contradicted by one who may be truly called the ' 
founder of the Church of England, Archbishop 
Cranmer, who says, " The bishops and priests 
were at one time, and were not two things ; but 
both one office in the beginning of Christ's re- 
ligion." — SiiLLiXGrLEEi's Irenicum, p. 392. 

On the subject of the Choice: itself, opinions 
as opposite or varying as possible have been held, ' 
down from that of the papists, who contend for 
its visible unity throughout the world under a 
visible head, to that of the Independents, who 
consider the universal Church as composed of 
congregational churches, each perfect in itself, 
and entirely independent of every other. 

The first opinion is manifestly contradicted by 
the language of the apostles, who, while they 
teach that there is but one Church, composed of 
believers throughout the world, think it not at 
all inconsistent with this to speak of '-the 
Churches of Judea," "of Galatia." "the seven 
Churches of Asia," "the Church of Ephesus," 
etc. Among themselves the apostles had no com- : 
mon head, but planted Churches and gave direc- 
tions for their government, in most cases without \ 
any apparent correspondence with each other, j 
The popish doctrine is certainly not found in 
their writings ; and so far were they from mak- 
ing provision for the government of this one 
supposed Church, by the appointment of one 
visible and exclusive head, that they provide for 
the future government of the respective Churches 
raised up by them, in a totally different manner; . 
that is, by the ordination of ministers for each 
Church, who are indifferently called bishops, and 
presbyters, and pastors. The only unity of which 
they speak is the unity of the whole Church in 
Christ, the invisible Head, by faith ; and the 
unity produced by fervent love toward each 
other. Nor has the popish doctrine of the visible 
unity of the Church any countenance from early 
antiquity. The best ecclesiastical historians have 
showed that, through the greater part of the 
second century, " the Christian Churches were 
independent of each other. Each Christian as- 
sembly was a little state governed by its own 
laws, which were either enacted or at least ap- 
proved by the society. But in process of time, 
all the Churches of a province were formed into 
one large ecclesiastical body, which, like con- 
federate states, assembled at certain times in 
order to deliberate about the common interests 
of the whole." — Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, 
cent. 2, chap. ii. So far, indeed, this union of 
Churches appears to have been a wise and useful 
arrangement, although afterward it was carried 
to an injurious extreme, until finally it gave 
birth to the assumptions of the bishop of Konie, 
as universal bishop — a claim, however, which, 



when most successful, was but partially sub- 
mitted to, the Eastern Churches having always 
maintained their independence. No very large 
association of Churches of any kind existed till 
toward the close of the second century, which 
sufficiently refutes the papal argument from an- 
tiquity. 

The independence of the early Christian 
Churches does not, however, appear to have re- 
sembled that of the Churches which in modern 
times are called Independent. During the lives 
of the apostles and evangelists, they were cer- 
tainly subject to their counsel and control, which 
proves that the independency of separate societies 
was not the first form of the Church. It may, 
indeed, be allowed that some of the smaller and 
more insulated Churches might, after the death 
of the apostles and evangelists, retain this form 
for some considerable time ; but the larger 
Churches, in the chief cities, and those planted 
in populous neighborhoods, had many presby- 
ters, and, as the members multiplied, they had 
several separate assemblies or congregations, yet 
all under the same common government. And 
when Churches were raised up in the neighbor- 
hood of cities, the appointment of chorepiscopi, 
or country bishops, and of visiting presbyters, 
both acting under the presbytery of the city, 
with its bishop at its head, is sufficiently in 
proof that the ancient Churches, especially the 
larger and more prosperous of them, existed in 
that form, which in modern times we should call 
a religious connection, subject to a common go- 
vernment. This appears to have arisen out of 
the very circumstance of the increase of the 
Church through the zeal of the first Christians ; 
and in the absence of all direction by the apos- 
tles that every new society of believers raised 
should be formed into an independent Church, it 
was doubtless much more in the spirit of the 
very first discipline exercised by the apostles 
and evangelists, (when none of the Churches 
were independent, but remained under the go- 
vernment of those who had been chiefly instru- 
mental in raising them up,) to place themselves 
under a common inspection, and to unite the 
weak with the strong, and the newly converted 
with those who were "in Christ before them." 
There was also in this greater security afforded 
both for the continuance of wholesome doctrine 
and of godly discipline. 

The persons appointed to feed and govern the 
Church of Christ being, then, as we have seen, 
those who are called "pastors," a word which 
imports both care and government, two other sub- 
jects claim our attention — the share which the 
body of the people have in their own govern- 
ment by their pastors, and the objects toward 



CH. I.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



689 



which the power of government, thus established 
in the Church, is legitimately directed. 

As to the first, some preliminary observations 
may be necessary. 

1. When Churches are professedly connected 
with, and exclusively patronized and upheld by, 
the state, questions of ecclesiastical government 
arise, which are of greater perplexity and diffi- 
culty than when they are left upon their origi- 
nal ground, as voluntary and spiritual associa- 
tions. The state will not exclusively recognize 
ministers without maintaining some control over 
their functions ; and will not lend its aid to en- 
force the canons of an established Church, with- 
out reserving to itself some right of appeal, or 
of interposition. Hence a contest between the 
civil and ecclesiastical powers often springs up, 
and one at least generally feels itself to be fet- 
tered by the other. When an established Church 
is perfectly tolerant, and the state allows freedom 
of dissent and separation from it without penal- 
ties, these evils are much mitigated. But it is 
not my design to consider a Church as at all 
allied with the state ; but as deriving nothing 
from it except protection, and that general coun- 
tenance which the influence of a government 
professing Christianity and recognizing its laws 
must afford. 

2. The only view in which the sacred writers 
of the New Testament appear to have contem- 
plated the Churches was that of associations 
founded upon conviction of the truth of Christi- 
anity, and the obligatory nature of the commands 
of Christ. They considered the pastors as de- 
pendent for their support upon the free contri- 
butions of the people ; and the people as bound 
to sustain, love, and obey them in all things law- 
ful, that is, in all things agreeable to the doc- 
trine they had received in the Scriptures, and, 
in things indifferent, to pay respectful deference 
to them. They enjoined it upon the pastors to 
"rule well," "diligently," and with fidelity, in 
executing the directions they had given them ; 
to silence all teachers of false doctrines, and 
their adherents ; to reprove unruly and immoral 
members of the Church, and, if incorrigible, to 
put them away. On the other hand, should any 
of their pastors or teachers err in doctrine, the 
people are enjoined not "to receive them," to 
"turn away" from them, and not even to bid 
them "God-speed." The rule which forbids 
Christians "to eat," that is, to communicate at 
the Lord's table with an immoral "brother," 
held, of course, good, when that brother was a 
pastor. Thus pastors were put by them under the 
influence of the public opinion of the Churches; 
and the remedy of separating from them, in 
manifest defections of doctrine and morals, was 

44 



afforded to the sound members of a Church, 
should no power exist, able or inclined to silence 
the offending pastor and his party. In all this, 
principles were recognized which, had they not 
been in future times lost sight of or violated, 
would have done much, perhaps every thing, to 
preserve some parts of the Church, at least, in 
soundness of faith and purity of manners. A 
perfect religious liberty is always supposed by 
the apostles to exist among Christians ; no com- 
pulsion of the civil power is anywhere assumed 
by them as the basis of their advices or direc- 
tions ; no binding of the members to one Church, 
without liberty to join another, by any ties but 
those involved in moral considerations, of suffi- 
cient weight, however, to prevent the evils of 
faction and schism. It was this which created a 
natural and competent check upon the ministers 
of the Church ; for being only sustained by the 
opinion of the Churches, they could not but have 
respect to it ; and it was this which gave to the 
sound part of a fallen Church the advantage of 
renouncing, upon sufficient and well-weighed 
grounds, their communion with it, and of kin- 
dling up the light of a pure ministry and a holy 
discipline, by forming a separate association, 
bearing its testimony against errors in doctrine, 
and failures in practice. Nor is it to be con- 
ceived that, had this simple principle of perfect 
religious liberty been left unviolated through 
subsequent ages, the Church could ever have 
become so corrupt, or with such difficulty and 
slowness have been recovered from its fall. This 
ancient Christian liberty has happily been re- 
stored in a few parts of Christendom. 

3. In places where now the communion with 
particular Churches, as to human authority, is 
perfectly voluntary, and liberty of conscience is 
unfettered, it often happens that questions of 
Church government are argued on the assump- 
tion that the governing power in such Churches 
is of the same character, and tends to the same 
results, as where it is connected with civil influ- 
ence, and is upheld by the power of the state. 

Nothing can be more fallacious, and no instru- 
ment has been so powerful as this in the hands 
of the restless and factious to delude the un- 
wary. Those who possess the governing power 
in such Churches, are always under the influence 
of public opinion to an extent unfelt in estab- 
lishments. They can enforce nothing felt to be 
oppressive to the members in general without 
dissolving the society itself; and their utmost 
power extends to excision from the body, which, 
unlike the sentences of excommunication in state 
Churches, is wholly unconnected with civil pen- 
alties. If, then, a resistance is oreated to any 
regulations among the major part ol' anj such 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



religious community, founded on a sense of their 
injurious operation, or to the manner of their 
enforcement; and if that feeling be the result of 
a settled conviction, and not the effervescence of 
temporary mistake and excitement, a change 
must necessarily ensue, or the body at large be 
disturbed or dissolved: if, on the other hand, 
this feeling be the work of a mere faction, partial 
tumults or separation may take place, and great 
moral evil may result to the factious parties, but 
the body "will retain its communion, which will 
be a sufficient proof that the governing power 
has been the subject of ungrounded and unchari- 
table attack, since otherwise the people at large 
must have felt the evils of the general regula- 
tions or administration complained of. The 
very terms often used in the grand controversy 
arising out of the struggle for the establishment 
of religious liberty with national and intolerant 
Churches, are not generally appropriate to such 
discussions as may arise in voluntary religious 
societies, although they are often employed, 
either carelessly or ad captandum, to serve the 
purposes of faction. 

4. It is also an important general observation, 
that, in settling the government of a Church, 
there are preexistent laws of Christ, which it is 
not in the option of any to receive or reject. 
Under whatever form the governing power is 
arranged, it is so bound to execute all the rules 
left by Christ and his apostles, as to doctrine, 
worship, the sacraments, and discipline, hon- 
estly interpreted, that it is not at liberty to take 
that office, or to continue to exercise it, if, by any 
restrictions imposed upon it, it is prevented from 
carrying these laws into effect. As in the state, 
so in the Church, government is an ordinance of 
God ; and as it is imperative upon rulers in the 
state to be "a terror to evil-doers, and a praise 
to them that do well," so also is it imperative 
upon the rulers of the Church to banish strange 
doctrines, to uphold God's ordinances, to reprove 
and rebuke, and, finally, to put away evil-doers. 
The spirit in which this is to be done is also pre- 
scribed. It is to be done in the spirit of meek- 
ness, and with long-suffering ; but the work must 
be done upon the responsibility of the pastors to ! 
Him who has commissioned them for this pur- 
pose ; and they have a right to require from the ! 
people, that in this office and ministry they 
should not only not be obstructed, but affection- ' 
ately and -zealously aided, as ministering in these 
duties, sometimes painful, not for themselves, 
but for the good of the whole. With respect to 
the members of a Church, the 6ame remark is 
applicable as to the members of a state. It is 
not matter of option with them whether they 
will be under government according to the laws | 



[part IV. 

of Christ or not, for that is imperative : govern- 
ment in both cases being of Divine appointment. 
They have, on the other hand, the right to full 
security that they shall be governed by the laws 
of Christ ; and they have a right, too, to estab- 
lish as many guards against human infirmity and 
passion in those who are "set over them," as 
may be prudently devised, provided these are 
not carried to such an extent as to be obstruc- 
tive to the legitimate scriptural discharge of 
their duties. The true view of the case appears 
to be, that the government of the Church is in 
its pastors, open to various modifications as to 
form ; and that it is to be conducted with such a 
concurrence of the people as shall constitute a 
sufficient guard against abuse, and yet not prevent 
the legitimate and efficient exercise of pastoral 
duties, as these duties are stated in the Scrip- 
tures. This original authority in the pastors, 
and concurrent consent in the people, may be 
thus applied to particular cases : 

1. As to the ordination of ministers. If we 
consult the New Testament, this office was never 
conveyed by the people. The apostles were or- 
dained by our Lord ; the evangelists, by the 
apostles; the elders in every Church, both by 
apostles and evangelists. The passage which 
has been chiefly urged by those who would ori- 
ginate the ministry from the people, is Acts xiv. 
23, where the historian, speaking of St. Paul 
and Barnabas, says: "And when they had or- 
dained {xeipoTov^aavreg) elders in every Church, 
and had prayed with fasting, they commended 
them to the Lord." Here, because x £l P 0T0Ve ^ v 
originally signified to choose by way of suffrage, 
some have argued that these elders were appoint- 
ed by the suffrages of the people. Long, how- 
ever, before the time of St. Luke, this word was 
used for simple designation, without any refer- 
ence to election by suffrages ; and so it is em- 
ployed by St. Luke himself in the same book, 
Acts x. 41: "Witnesses foreappointed of God;" 
where, of course, the suffrages of men are out of 
the question. It is also fatal to the argument 
drawn from the text, that the act implied in the 
word, whatever it might be, was not the act of 
the people, but that of Paul and Barnabas. 
Even the deacons, whose appointment is men- 
tioned Acts vi., although "looked out" by the 
disciples as men of honest report, did not enter 
upon their office till solemnly "appointed" thereto 
by the apostles. Nothing is clearer in the New 
Testament, than that all the candidates for the 
ministry were judged of by those who had been 
placed in that office themselves, and received 
their appointment from them. Such too was the 
practice of the primitive Churches after the 
death of both apostles and evangelists. Presby- 



CH. I.] 



INSTITUTIONS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



691 



ters, who during the life of the apostles had the 
power of ordination, (for they laid their hands 
upon Timothy,) continued to perform that office 
in discharge of one solemn part of their duty, 
to perpetuate the ministry, and to provide for 
the wants of the Churches. In the times of the 
apostles, who were endued with special gifts, the 
concurrence of the people was not, perhaps, 
always formally taken ; but the directions to 
Timothy and Titus imply a reference to the 
judgment of the members of the Church, be- 
cause from them only it could be learned whether 
the party fixed upon for ordination possessed 
those qualifications without which ordination was 
prohibited. When the Churches assumed a more 
regular form, "the people were always present 
at ordinations, and ratified the action with their 
approbation and consent. To this end the bishop 
was wont before every ordination to publish 
the names of those who were to have holy orders 
conferred upon them, that so the people, who 
best knew their lives and conversation, might 
interpose if they had any thing material to ob- 
ject against them." (Cave's Primitive Christi- 
anity.) Sometimes also they nominated them by 
suffrages, and thus proposed them for ordination. 
The mode in which the people shall be made a 
concurrent party is matter of prudential regula- 
tion; but they had an early, and certainly a 
reasonable right to a voice in the appointment 
of their ministers, although the power of ordi- 
nation was vested in ministers alone, to be exer- 
cised on their responsibility to Christ. 

2. As to the laws by which the Church is to 
be governed. So far as they are manifestly 
laid down in the word of God, and not regula- 
tions judged to be subsidiary thereto, it is plain 
that the rulers of a Church are bound to execute 
them, and the people to obey them. They can- 
not be matter of compact on either side, except 
as the subject of a mutual and solemn engage- 
ment to defer to them without any modification 
or appeal to any other standard. 

Every Church declares in some way how it 
understands the doctrine and the disciplinary 
laws of Christ. This declaration as to doctrine, 
in modern times, is made by confessions or arti- 
cles of faith, in which, if fundamental error is 
found, the evil rests upon the head of that 
Church collectively, and upon the members indi- 
vidually, every one of whom is bound to try all 
doctrines by the Holy Scriptures, and cannot 
support an acknowledged system of error with- 
out guilt. As to discipline, the manner in which 
a Church provides for public worship, the publi- 
cation of the gospel, the administration of the 
sacraments, the instruction of the ignorant, the 
succor of the distressed, the admonition of the 



disorderly, and the excision of offenders, (which 
are all points on which the New Testament has 
issued express injunctions,) is its declaration of 
the manner in which it interprets those injunc- 
tions, which also it does on its own collective 
responsibility, and that of its members. If, 
however, we take for illustration of the subject 
before us, a Church at least substantially right in 
this its interpretation of doctrine, and of the 
laws of Christ as to general, and what we may 
call, for distinction's sake, moral discipline, 
these are the first principles upon which this 
Church is founded : it is either an apostolic 
Church, which has retained primitive faith and 
discipline, or it has subsequently been collected 
into a new communion, on account of the fall of 
other Churches, and has placed itself, according 
to its own conviction, upon the basis of primi- 
tive doctrine and discipline as found in the 
Scriptures. On this ground either the pastors 
and people met and united at first ; or the peo- 
ple, converted to faith and holiness by the labors 
of one or more pastors, holding, as they believe, 
these scriptural views, placed themselves under 
the guidance of these pastors, and thus formed 
themselves into a Church state, which was their 
act of accession to these principles. It is clear, 
therefore, that by this very act they bind them- 
selves to comply with the original terms of the 
communion into which they have entered, and 
that they have, as to these doctrines, and as to 
these disciplinary laws of Christ, which are to 
be preached and enforced, no rights of control 
over ministers which shall prevent the just exer- 
cise of their office in these respects. They have 
a right to such regulations and checks as shall 
secure, in the best possible way, the just and 
faithful exercise of that office, and the honest 
and impartial use of that power; but this is 
the limit of their right; and every system of 
suffrages or popular concurrence, which, under 
pretence of guai'ding against abuse of ministe- 
rial authority, makes its exercise absolutely and 
in all cases dependent upon the consent of those 
over whom it extends, goes beyond that limit, 
and invades the right of pastoral government 
which the New Testament has established. It 
brings, in a word, the laws of Christ into de- 
bate, which yet the members profess to have 
received as their rule ; and it claims to put into 
commission those duties which pastors are 
charged by Christ personally to exercise. Tho 
Apostle Paul, had the incestuous person at Co- 
rinth denied the crime, and there had boon nuy 
doubtfulness as to the fact, would unquestiona- 
bly have taken the opinion of the elders of that 
Church and others upon that fact; but when it 
became a question whether tho laws of Christ's 



692 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



discipline should be exercised or not, he did not 
feel himself concluded by the sense of the whole 
Corinthian Church, which was in favor of the 
offender continuing in communion with them ; 
but he instantly reproved them for their laxity, 
and issued the sentence of excision, thereby 
showing that an obvious law of Christ was not 
/ to be subjected to the decision of a majority. 
This view indeed supposes that such a society, 
like almost all the Churches ever known, has 
admitted, in the first instance, that the power of 
admission into the Church, of reproof, of exhor- 
tation, and of excision from it, subject to va- 
rious guards against abuses, is in the pastors of 
a Church. There are some who have adopted a 
different opinion, supposing that the power of 
administering the discipline of Christ must be 
conveyed by them to their ministers, and is to 
be wholly controlled by their suffrages ; so that 
there is in these systems, not a provision of 
counsel against possible errors in the exercise of 
authority, not a guard against human infirmity 
or viciousness, not a reservation of right to de- 
termine upon the fitness of the cases to which 
the laws of Christ are applied ; but a claim of 
coadministration as to these laws themselves, or 
rather an entire administration of them through 
the pastor, as a passive agent of their will. 
Those who adopt these views are bound to show 
that this is the state of things established in the 
Xew Testament. That it is not, appears plain 
from the very term "pastors," which imports 
both care and government : mild and affection- 
ate government, indeed, but still government. 
Hence the office of shepherd is applied to de- 
scribe the government of God and the govern- 
ment of kings. It appears, too, from other 
titles "given, not merely to apostles, but to the 
presbyters they ordained and placed over the 
Churches. They are called rjyovjxevoi, rulers ; 
eiriGitoTroi, overseers ; -rrpoecTuTeg, those who pre- 
side. They are commended for "ruling well;" 
and they are directed "to charge," "to re- 



prove, 



to rebuke, 



to watch," "to silence, 



"to put away." The very " account" they must 
give to God, in connection with the discharge of 
these duties, shows that their office and respon- 
sibility was peculiar and personal, and much 
greater than that of any private member of the 
Church, which it could not be if they were the 
passive agents only in matters of doctrine and 
discipline of the will of the whole. To the 
double duty of feeding and exercising the over- 
night of the flock, a special reward is also pro- 
mised when the "Chief Shepherd shall appear:" 
a title of Christ, which shows that as the pas- 
toral office of feeding and ruling is exercised by 
Christ supremely, so it is exercised by his minis- 



[PART IT. 

ters in both branches subordinated. Finally, 
the exhortations to Christians to "obey them 
that have the rule over them," and to "submit" 
to them, and " to esteem them very highly for 
their works' sake," 'and to "remember them," 
all show that the ministerial office is not one of 
mere agency, under the absolute direction of the 
votes of the collected Church. 

3. With respect to other disciplinary regula- 
tions, supposed by any religious society to be 
subsidiary to the great and scriptural ends of 
Church communion, these appear to be matters 
of mutual agreement, and are capable of modi- 
fication by the mutual consent of ministers and 
people, under their common responsibility to 
Christ, that they are done advisedly, with prayer, 
with reference to the edification of the Church, 
and so as not to infringe upon, but to promote, 
the influence of the doctrines, duties, and spirit 
of the gospel. The consent of the people to all 
such regulations, either tacitly by their adop- 
tion of them, or more expressly through any 
regular meetings of different officers, who may 
be regarded as acquainted with and representing 
the sentiments of the whole ; as also by the ap- 
proval of those aged, wise, and, from different 
causes, influential persons who are to be found 
in all societies, and who are always, whether in 
office or not, their natural guardians, guides, 
and representatives, is necessary to confidence 
and harmony, and a proper security for good 
and orderly government. It is thus that those 
to whom the government or well-ordering of the 
Church is committed, and those upon whom their 
influence and scriptural authority exert them- 
selves, appear to be best brought into a state of 
harmony and mutual confidence ; and that abund- 
ant security is afforded against all misrule, see- 
ing that in a voluntary communion, and where 
perfect liberty exists for any member to unite 
himself to other Churches, or for any number 
of them to arrange themselves into a new com- 
munity, subject, however, to the moral cautions 
of the New Testament against the schismatic 
spirit, it can never be the interest of those with 
whom the regulation of the affairs of a Church 
is lodged, voluntarily to adopt measures which 
can be generally felt to be onerous and injurious, 
nor is it practicable to persevere in them. In 
this method of bringing in the concurrence of 
the people, all assemblages of whole societies, or 
very large portions of them, are avoided — a 
popular form of Church government which, 
however it were modified so as best to accord 
with the scriptural authority of ministers, could 
only be tolerable in very small isolated societies, 
and that in the times of their greatest simplicity 
and love. To raise into legislators and censors 



CH. I.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



69* 



all the members of a Church, the young, the 
ignorant, and the inexperienced, is to do them 
great injury. It is the sure way to foster de- 
bates, contentions, and self-confidence, to open 
the door to intrigue and policy, to tempt forward 
and conceited men to become a kind of religious 
demagogues, and entirely to destroy the salutary 
influence of the aged, experienced, and gifted 
members, by referring every decision to numbers 
and suffrages, and placing all that is good and 
venerable and influential, among the members 
themselves, at the feet of a democracy. 

4. As to the power of admission into the 
Church, that is clearly with ministers, to whom 
the office of baptism is committed, by which the 
door is opened into the Church universal ; and 
as there can be no visible communion kept up 
with the universal Church, except by communion 
with some particular Church, the admission into 
that particular communion must be in the hands 
of ministers, because it is one of the duties of 
their office, made such by the Scripture itself, 
to enjoin this mode of confessing Christ by as- 
sembling with his saints in worship, by submit- 
ting to discipline, and by "showing forth his 
death" at the Lord's Supper. We have, however, 
already said that the members of a Church, al- 
though they have no right to obstruct the just 
exercise of this power, have the right to prevent 
its being unworthily exercised ; and their con- 
currence with the admission, tacit or declared, 
according to their usages, is an arrangement 
supported by analogies drawn from the New 
Testament, and from primitive antiquity. The 
expulsion of unworthy members after admoni- 
tion, devolves upon those to whom the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments, the signs of commun- 
ion, is intrusted, and therefore upon ministers, 
for this reason, that as " shepherds" of the flock 
under the "Chief Shepherd," they are charged 
to carry his laws into effect. These laws it is 
neither with them nor with the people to modify : 
they are already declared by superior authority; 
but the determination of the facts of the case to 
which they are to be applied, is matter of mu- 
tual investigation and decision, in order to pre- 
vent an erring or an improper exercise of au- 
thority. That such investigation should take 
place, not before the assembled members of a 
society, but before proper and select tribunals, 
appears not only an obviously proper, but, in 
many respects, a necessary regulation. 

The trial of unworthy ministers remains to be 
noticed, which, wherever a number of religious 
societies exist as one Church, having therefore 
many pastors, is manifestly most safely place! 
in the hands of those pastors themselves, and 
that not only because the official acts of censure 



1 and exclusion lie with them, but for other rea- 
! sons also. It can scarcely happen that a minis- 
i ter should be under accusation, except in some 
very particular cases, but that, from his former 
influence, at least with a part of the people, 
I some faction would be found to support him. 
In proportion to the ardor of this feeling, the 
other party would be excited to undue severity 
and bitterness. To try such a case before a 
whole society, there would not only be the same 
objection as in the case of private members, 
but the additional one, that parties would J^e 
more certainly formed, and be still more violent. 
If he must be arraigned then before some special 
' tribunal, the most fitting is that of his brethren, 
I provided that the parties accusing have the right 
to bring on such a trial upon exhibition of pro- 
' bable evidence, and to prosecute it without ob- 
struction. In Churches whose ministers are 
; thrown solely upon the public opinion of the 
! society, and exist as such only by their charac- 
I ter, this is ordinarily a sufficient guard against 
the toleration of improper conduct ; while it re- 
! moves the trial from those whose excitement for 
or against the accused might on either side be 
! unfavorable to fair and equitable decision, and 
1 to the peace of the Church. 

The above remarks contain but a sketch of 
those principles of Church government which 
! appear to be contained in, or to be suggested by, 
the New Testament. They still leave much lib- 
! erty to Christians to adapt them in detail to the 
circumstances in which they are placed. The 
; offices to be created ; the meetings necessary for 
! the management of the various affairs of the 
' Church, spiritual and financial ; the assembling 
of ministers in larger or smaller numbers for 
counsel, and for oversight of each other, and of 
the churches to which they belong, are all mat- 
ters of this kind, and are left to the suggestions 
of wisdom and piety. The extent to which dis- 
tinct societies of Christians shall associate in 
one Church, under a common government, ap- 
pears also to be a matter of prudence and of 
circumstances. In the primitive Church, we see 
different societies in a city and its neighborhood 
under the common government of the assembly 
of presbyters ; and afterward these grew into 
provincial churches of greater or smaller extent. 
In modern times, we have similar associations in 
the form of national Churches, Episcopal or 
Presbyterian; and of Churches existing -without 
any recognition of the state at all, and forming 
smaller or larger communities, from the union of 
a few societies to the union of societies through- 
out a whole country: holding the same doctrines, 
practicing the same modes of worship, and pla- 
cing themselves under a common code of laws 



694 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



and a common government. But whatever be 
the form they take, they are bound to respect, 
and to model themselves by, the principles of 
Church communion and of Church discipline 
which are contained in the New Testament ; and 
they will be fruitful in holiness and usefulness 
so long as they conform to them, and so long as 
those forms of administration are conscientiously 
preferred which appear best adapted to preserve 
and to diffuse sound doctrine, Christian prac- 
tice, spirituality, and charity. That discipline 
is defective and bad in itself, or it is ill adminis- 
tered, which does not accomplish these ends ; 
and that is best which best promotes them. 

The ends to which Church authority is legiti- 
mately directed remain to be briefly considered. 

The first is, the preservation and the publica- 
tion of " sound doctrine" Against false doc- 
trines, and the men "of corrupt minds" who 
taught them, the sermons of Christ, and the 
writings of the apostles, abound in cautions; and 
since St. Paul lays it down as a rule, as to erring 
teachers, that their "mouths must be stopped," 
this implies that the power of declaring what 
sound doctrine is, and of silencing false teachers, 
was confided by the apostles to the future Church. 
By systematic writers this has been called potes- 
tas 6oy/j,aTt,K7j ; which, abused by the ambition of 
man, forms no small part of that antichristian 
usurpation which characterizes the Church of 
Home. Extravagant as are her claims, so that 
she brings in her traditions as of equal authority 
with the inspired writings, and denies to men the 
right of private judgment, and of trying her 
dogmas by the test of the Holy Scriptures, there 
is a sober sense in which this power may be 
taken. The great Protestant principle, that the 
Holy Scriptures are the only standard of doc- 
trine ; that the doctrines of every Church must 
be proved out of them ; and that to this standard 
every individual member has the right of bring- 
ing them, in order to the confirmation of his own 
faith, must be held inviolate, if we would not see 
Divine authority displaced by human. Since, 
however, men may come to different conclusions 
upon the meaning of Scripture, it has been the 
practice from primitive times to declare the sense 
in which Scripture is understood by collective 
assemblies of ministers, and by the Churches 
united with them, in order to the enforcement of 
such interpretations upon Christians generally, 
by the influence of learning, piety, numbers, and 
solemn deliberation. The reference of the ques- 
tion respecting circumcision by the Church at 
Antioch to "the apostles and elders at Jerusa- 
lem," is the first instance of this, though with 
this peculiarity, that in this case the decision 
was given under plenary inspiration. While one 



[part IV. 

of the apostles lived, an appeal could be made to 
him in like manner when any doctrinal novelty 
sprang up in the Church. After their death, 
smaller or larger councils, composed of the pub- 
lic teachers of the Churches, were resorted to, 
that they might pronounce upon these differences 
of opinion, and by their authority confirm the 
faithful, and abash the propagators of error. 
Still later, four councils, called general, from the 
number of persons assembled in them from vari- 
ous parts of Christendom, have peculiar emi- 
nence : the Council of Nice, in the fourth cen- 
tury, which condemned the Arian heresy, and 
formed that scriptural and important formulary 
called the Nicene Creed : the Council of Constan- 
tinople, held at the end of the same century, 
which condemned the errors of Macedonius, and 
asserted the Divinity and personality of the Holy 
Ghost ; and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalce- 
don, about the middle of the fifth century, which 
censured the opinions of Nestorius and Eutyches. 
At Nice it was declared that the Son is truly 
God, of the same substance with the Father ; at 
Constantinople, that the Holy Ghost is also truly 
God; at Ephesus, that the Divine nature was 
truly united to the human in Christ, in one per- 
son ; at Chalcedon, that both natures remained 
distinct, and that the human nature was not lost 
or absorbed in the Divine. The decisions of 
these councils, both from their antiquity and 
from the manifest conformity of their decisions 
on these points to the Holy Scriptures, have been 
received to this day in what have been called the 
orthodox Churohes, throughout the world. On 
general councils, the Romish Church has been 
divided as to the questions whether infallibility 
resides in them or in the pope, or in the pope 
when at their head. Protestants cut this matter 
short by acknowledging that they have erred, 
and may err, being composed of fallible men, 
and that they have no authority but as they 
manifestly agree with the Scriptures. To the 
above-mentioned councils they have in general 
always paid great deference, as affording confir- 
mation of the plain and literal sense of Scrip- 
ture on the points in question ; but on no other 
ground. "Things ordained by general councils 
as necessary to salvation, have neither strength 
nor authority, unless it may be declared they be 
taken out of Holy Scripture." ( Twenty -first Ar- 
ticle of the Church of England.) The manner in 
which the respective Churches of the Reforma- 
tion declared their doctrinal interpretation of 
the Scriptures on the leading points of theology, 
was by confessions and articles of faith, and by 
the adoption of ancient or primitive creeds. 
With reference to this practice no doubt it is, 
that the Church of England declares in her 



CH. I.] 

twentieth article, that "the Church hath author- 
ity in controversies of faith; 1 ' but qualifies the 
tenet by adding, "And yet it is not lawful for the 
Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to 
God's word written;" in which there is a mani- 
fest recognition of the right of all who have 
God's word in their hands, to make use of it in 
order to try what any Church "ordains" as 
necessary to be believed. This authority of a 
Church in matters of doctrine appears then to be 
reduced to the following particulars, which, al- 
though directly opposed to the assumptions of 
the Church of Rome, are of great importance : 
1. To declare the sense in which it interprets the 
language of Scripture on all the leading doc- 
trines of the Christian revelation ; for to con- 
tend, as some have done, that no creeds or arti- 
cles of faith are proper, but that belief in the 
Scriptures only ought to be required, would be 
to destroy all doctrinal distinctions, since the 
most perverse interpreters of Scripture profess 
to believe the words of Scripture. 2. To re- 
quire from all its members, with whom the right 
of private judgment is by all Protestant Churches 
left inviolate, to examine such declarations of 
faith professing to convey the sense of Scripture 
with modesty and proper respect to those grave 
and learned assemblies in which all these points 
have been weighed with deliberation ; receiving 
them as guides to truth, not implicitly, it is true, 
but still with docility and humility. "Great 
weight and deference is due to such decisions, 
and every man that finds his own thoughts differ 
from them ought to examine the matter over 
again with much attention and care, freeing him- 
self all he can from prejudice and obstinacy, 
with a just distrust of his own understanding, 
and an humble respect to the judgment of his su- 
periors. This is due to the consideration of peace 
and union, and to that authority which the 
Church has to maintain it ; but if, after all pos- 
sible methods of inquiry, a man cannot master 
his thoughts, or make them agree with the 
public decisions, his conscience is not under 
bonds, since this authority is not absolute, nor 
grounded upon a promise of infallibility." (Bur- 
net.) 3. To silence within its own pale the 
preaching of all doctrines contrary to the re- 
ceived standards. On this every Church has a 
right to insist which sincerely believes that con- 
trary doctrines to its own are fundamental or 
dangerous errors, and which is thereby bound 
both to keep its members from their contamina- 
tion, and also to preserve them from those dis- 
tractions and controversies to which the preach- 
ing of diverse doctrines by its ministers would 
inevitably lead. Nor is there any thing in the 
exercise of this authority contrary to Christian 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



695 



liberty, since the members of any communion, 
and especially the ministers, know beforehand 
the terms of fellowship with the Churches whose 
confessions of faith are thus made public ; and 
because, also, where conscience is unfettered by 
public law, they are neither prevented from en- 
joying their own opinions in peace, nor from 
propagating them in other assemblies. 

The second end is, the forming of such regula- 
tions for the conduct of its ministers, officers, 
and members, as shall establish a common order 
for worship ; facilitate the management of the 
affairs of the community, spiritual, economical, 
and financial ; and give a right direction to the 
general conduct of the whole society. This in 
technical language is called potestas diaraKTiKT), 
and consists in making canons, or rules, for those 
particular matters which are not provided for 
in detail by the directions of Scripture. This 
power also, like the former, has been carried to 
a culpable excess in many Churches, so as to fill 
them with superstition, and in many respects to 
introduce an onerous system of observances, 
like that of Judaism, the yoke from which the 
gospel has set us free. The simplicity of Chris- 
tianity has thus been often destroyed, and the 
"doctrines of men" set up "as commandments 
of God." At the same time, there is a sound 
sense in which this power in a Church must be 
admitted, and a deference to it bound upon the 
members. For when the laws of Christ are 
both rightly understood and cordially admitted, 
the application of them to particular cases is still 
necessary ; many regulations also are dictated 
by inference and by analogies, and often appear 
to be required by the spirit of the gospel, for 
which there is no provision in the letter of Scrip- 
ture. The obligation of public worship, for in- 
stance, is plainly stated ; but the seasons of its 
observance, its frequency, and the mode in which 
it is to be conducted, must be matter of special 
regulation, in order that all things may be done 
"decently and in order." The observance of the 
Sabbath is binding ; but particular rules guard- 
ing against such acts as in the judgment. of a 
Church are violations of the law of the Sabbath, 
are often necessary to direct the judgment and 
consciences of the body of the people. Baptism 
is to be administered ; but the manner of tin? 
service may be prescribed by a Church, since 
the Scriptures have not determined it. So also 
as to the mode and the times of receiving the 
Lord's Supper ; in the same absence of inspired 
directions, regulations must be agreed upon, that 
there may be, as nearly as edification requires, 
an undistracted uniformity of practice. Special 
festivals of commemoration and thanksgivings 
may also bo appointed, as fit occasions for tho 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



inculcation of particular truths and moral du- 
ties, and for the special excitement of grateful 
affections. For although they are not particu- 
larly prescribed in Scripture, they are in mani- 
fest accordance with its spirit, and are sanctioned 
by many of the examples 'which it exhibits. 
Days of fasting and humiliation, for the same 
reasons, may be the subject of appointment ; 
and besides the regular acts of public worship, 
private meetings of the members for mutual 
prayer and religious converse may also be found 
necessary. To these may be added, various 
plans for the instruction of children, the visita- 
tion and relief of the sick, and the introduction 
of the gospel into neglected neighborhoods, and 
its promotion in foreign lands. A considerable 
number of other regulations touching order, con- 
tributions, the repressing of particular vices 
which may mark the spirit of the times, and the 
practice of particular duties, will also be found 
necessary. 

The only legitimate ends, however, of all these 
directions and rules, are, the edification of the 
Church ; the preservation of its practical purity; 
the establishment of an influential order and de- 
corum in its services ; and the promotion of its 
usefulness to the world. The general principles 
by which they are to be controlled, are the spirit- 
uality, simplicity, and practical character of Chris- 
tianity ; and the authority with which they are 
invested is derived from piety, wisdom, and sin- 
gleness of heart, in those who originate them, 
and from that docility and submissiveness of 
Christians to each other which is enforced upon 
them in the New Testament. For although every 
Christian is exhorted to "prove all things," to 
"search the Scriptures," and to exercise his best 
judgment, in matters which relate to doctrine, 
discipline, and practice, yet he is to do this in 
the spirit of a Christian ; not with self-willedness, 
and self-confidence ; not contemning the opinion 
and authority of others ; not factiously and cen- 
soriously. This is his duty even where the most 
important subjects are in question; how much 
more then in things comparatively indifferent 
ought he to practice the apostolic rule: "Like- 
wise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the 
elder; yea, all of you be subject one to another, 
and be clothed with humility." 

The third end of Church government is the 
infliction and removal of censures ; a power 
(potestas dianpiTinri) the abuse of which, and the 
extravagant lengths to which it has been car- 
ried, have led some wholly to deny it, or to treat 
it slightly ; but which is nevertheless deposited 
with every scriptural Church. Even associations 
much less solemn and spiritual in their character, 
have the power to put away their members, and 



[PART rv. 

to receive again, upon certain conditions, those 
who offend against their rules ; and if the offence 
which called forth this expulsion be of a moral 
nature, the censure of a whole society, inflicted 
after due examination, comes with much greater 
weight, and is a much greater reproach and mis- 
fortune' to the person who falls under it, than 
that of a private individual. In the case of a 
Christian Church, however, the proceeding con- 
nects itself with a higher than human authority. 
The members have separated from the world, and 
have placed themselves under the laws of Christ. 
They stand in a special relation to him, so long 
as they are faithful: they are objects of his care 
and love, as members of his own body; and to 
them, as such, great and numerous promises are 
made. To preserve them in this state of fidelity, 
to guard them from errors of doctrine and 
viciousness of practice, and thus to prevent their 
separation from Christ, the Church, with its min- 
istry, its ordinances, and its discipline, was estab- 
lished. He who becomes unfaithful in opposition 
to the influence of those edifying and conserva- 
tory means, forfeits the favor of Christ, even 
before he is deservedly separated from the 
Church; but when he is separated, put away, 
denied communion with the Church, he loses also 
the benefit of all those peculiar means of grace 
and salvation, and of those special influences 
and promises, which Christ bestows upon the 
Church. He is not only thrown back upon com- 
mon society with shame, stigmatized as an "evil 
worker," by the solemn sentence of a religious 
tribunal ; but becomes, so to speak, again a mem- 
ber of that incorporated and hostile society, the 
world, against which the exclusive and penal 
sentences of the word of God are directed. 
Where the sentence of excision by a Church is 
erring or vicious, as it may be in some cases, it 
cannot affect an innocent individual : he would 
remain, notwithstanding the sentence of men, a 
member of Christ's invisible universal Church ; 
but when it proceeds upon a just application of 
the laws of Christ, there can be no doubt of its 
ratification in heaven, although the door is left 
open to penitence and restoration. 

In proportion, however, as a sober and serious 
Christian, having those views, wishes to keep up 
in his own mind, and in the minds of others, a 
proper sense of the weight and solemnity of 
Church censures when rightly administered, he 
will feel disgusted at those assumptions of con- 
trol over the mercy and justice of God which 
fallible men have in some Churches endeavored 
to establish, and have too often exercised for the 
gratification of the worst passions. So because 
our Lord said to Peter, "I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and "what- 



CH. I.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



697 



soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven," -which is also said 
Matt, xviii. 18, to all the apostles, "it came to 
be understood that the sentence of excommuni- 
cation, by its own intrinsic authority, condemned 
to eternal punishment ; that the excommunicated 
person could not be delivered from this condem- 
nation unless the Church gave him absolution ; 
and that the Church had the power of absolving 
him upon the private confession of his fault, 
either by prescribing to him certain acts of 
penance and works of charity, the performance 
of which was considered as a satisfaction for the 
sin which he had committed, or by applying to 
him the merits of some other person. And as, 
in the progress of corruption, the whole power 
of the Church was supposed to be lodged in the 
Pope, there flowed from him, at his pleasure, 
indulgences or remissions of some parts of the 
penance, absolutions, and pardons, the posses- 
sion of which was represented to Christians as 
essential to salvation, and the sale of which 
formed a most gainful traffic." 

As to the passage respecting the gift of the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, from 
which these views affect to be derived, it is most 
naturally explained by the very apposite and ob- 
viously explanatory fact, that this apostle was 
the first preacher of the gospel dispensation in 
its perfected form, both to the Jews at the day 
of Pentecost, and afterward to the Gentiles. 
Bishop Horsley applies it only to the latter of 
these events, to which, indeed, it may principally, 
but not exclusively, refer. 

" St. Peter's custody of the keys was a tempo- 
rary, not a perpetual authority: its object was 
not individuals, but the whole human race. The 
kingdom of heaven upon earth is the true Church 
of God. It is now, therefore, the Christian 
Church : formerly the Jewish Church was that 
kingdom. The true Church is represented in 
this text, as in many passages of holy writ, 
under the image of a walled city, to be entered 
only at the gates. Under the Mosaic economy, 
these gates were shut, and particular persons 
only could obtain admittance — Israelites by birth 
or by legal incorporation. The locks of these 
gates were the rites of the Mosaic law, which 
obstructed the entrance of aliens. But, after 
our Lord's ascension, and the descent of the 
Holy Ghost, the keys of the city were given to 
St. Peter by that vision which taught him, and 
authorized him to teach others, that all distinc- 
tions of one nation from another were at an end. 
By virtue of this special commission, the groat 
apostle applied the key, pushed back the bolt 
of the lock, and threw the gates of the city open 



for the admission of the whole Gentile world, in 
the instance of Cornelius and his family." — 
Horsley' s Sermons. 

When the same learned prelate would also 
refer the binding and loosing power mentioned 
in the above texts exclusively to Peter, he for- 
gets that in the passage above referred to, Matt, 
xviii. 18, it is given to all the apostles, "What- 
soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven." These expressions 
manifestly refer to the authoritative declaration 
of any thing to be obligatory, and its infraction 
to be sinful, and, therefore, subject to punish- 
ment, or the contrary ; and the passage receives 
sufficient illustration from the words of our Lord 
to his apostles after his resurrection, when, after 
breathing upon them, he said, "Keceive ye the 
Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted to them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
they are retained." John xx. 22, 23. To qualify 
them for this authoritative declaration of what 
was obligatory upon men, or otherwise, and of 
the terms upon which sins are "remitted," and 
the circumstances under which they are "re- 
tained," they previously received the Holy Ghost 
— a sufficient proof that this power was con- 
nected with the plenary inspiration of the 
apostles ; and beyond those inspired men it 
could not extend, unless equally strong miracu- 
lous evidence of the same degree of inspiration 
were afforded by any others. The manner, also, 
in which the apostles exercised this power eluci- 
dates the subject. "We have no instance at all 
of their forgiving the sins of any individuals: 
they merely proclaimed the terms of pardon. 
And we have no instance of their "retaining" 
the sins of any one, except by declaring them 
condemned by the laws of the gospel, of which 
they were the preachers. They authoritatively 
explain in their writings the terms of forgive- 
ness: they state as to duty what is obligatory, 
and what is not obligatory, upon Christians: 
they pronounce sinners of various kinds, impeni- 
tent and unbelieving, to be under God's wrath ; 
and they declare certain apostates to be put 
beyond forgiveness by their own act, not by 
apostolic excommunication ; and thus they bind 
and loose, remit sins and retain them. The 
meaning of these passages is in this manner ex- 
plained by the practice of the apostles them- 
selves; and we may also see the reason why in 
Matthew xviii. a similar declaration stands con- 
nected with the censures of a Church: "More- 
over, if thy brother trespass against thee, go 
and tell him his fault between thee and him 
alone: if he shall hoar thee, thou hast gained 
thy brother. But if he will not hour thee, then 



698 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



take with thee one or two more, that in the 
mouth of two or three witnesses every word 
may be established. And if he shall neglect to 
hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he 
neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee 
as a heathen man and as a publican. Verily, 
I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatso- 
ever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in 
heaven." 

That here there may be a reference to a pro- \ 
vision made among the Jews for settling ques- 
tions of accusation and dispute by the elders of 
their synagogues, is probable ; but it is also 
clear that our Lord looked forward to the esta- 
blishment of his own Church, which was to dis- j 
place the synagogue ; and that there might be 
Infallible rules to guide that Church in its judg- ■ 
ment on moral cases, he turns to the disciples, 
to whom the discourse is addressed, and says to i 
them, "Whatsoever ye," not the Church, "shall 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and | 
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed 
in heaven." Of the disciples then present, the 
subsequent history leads us to conclude that he | 
principally meant that the apostles should be | 
endued with this power, and that they were to j 
be the inspired persons who were to furnish "the 
Church" with infallible rules of judgment in all 
such cases of dispute and accusation. When, 
therefore, any Church rightly interprets these 
apostolic rules, and rightly applies them to 
particular cases, it then exercises a discipline 
which is not only approved, but is also confirmed 
in heaven, by the concurring dispensations of 
God, who respects his own inspirations in his 
apostles. The whole shows the careful and 
solemn manner in which all such investigations 
are to be conducted, and the serious effect of 
them. It is by the admonishing and putting 
away of offenders that the Church bears its testi- 
mony against all sin before the world ; and it is 
thus that she maintains a salutary influence over 
her members by the well-grounded fear of those 
censures which, when scripturally administered, 
are sanctioned by Christ its Head ; and which, 
when they extend to excision from the body, and 
no error of judgment or sinister intention viti- 
ates the proceeding, separate the offenders from 
that special grace of Christ which is promised 
to the faithful collected into a Church state — a 
loss, an evil, and a danger, which nothing but 
repentance, humiliation, and a return to God and 
his people, can repair. For it is to be observed, 
that this part of discipline is an ordinance of 
Christ, not only for the maintenance of the 
character of his Churches, and the preservation 
of their influence in the world, but for the spirit- 



[part rv. 



ual benefit of the offenders themselves. To this 
effect are the words of the Apostle Paul as to 
the immoral Corinthian, "to deliver such a one 
to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," the 
dominion of his bodily appetites, "that the 
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 
Jesus." The practice of many of the ancient 
Churches was, in this respect, rigid : in several 
of the circumstances far too much so ; and thus 
it assumed a severity much more appalling than 
in the apostolic times. It shows, however, how 
deeply the necessity of maintaining moral disci- 
pline was felt among them, and in substance, 
though not in every part of the mode, is worthy 
of remembrance. "When disciples of Christ, who 
had dishonored his religion by committing any 
gross immorality, or by relapsing into idolatry, 
were cut off from the Church by the sentence of 
excommunication, they were kept often for years 
in a state of penance, however desirous to be 
readmitted. They made a public confession of 
their faith, accompanied with the most humiliat- 
ing expressions of grief. For some time they 
stood without the doors while the Christians 
were employed in worship. Afterward they 
were allowed to enter ; then to stand during a 
part of the service ; then to remain during the 
whole ; but they were not permitted to partake 
of the Lord's Supper till a formal absolution was 
pronounced by the Church. The time of the pen- 
ance was sometimes shortened, when the anguish 
of their mind, or any occasional distress of body, 
threatened the danger of their dying in that con- 
dition ; or when those who were then suffering 
persecution, or other deserving members of the 
Church, interceded for them, and became, by this 
intercession, in some measure sureties for their 
future good behavior. The duration of the 
penance, the acts required while it continued, and 
the manner of the absolution, varied at different 
i times. The matter was, from its nature, subject 
! to much abuse : it was often taken under the 
j cognizance of ancient councils ; and a great part 
of their canons was employed in regulating the 
exercise of discipline." — Hill's Lectures. 

In concluding this chapter, it may be observed, 
, that however difficult it may be, in some cases, 
I to adjust modes of Church government, so that, 
in the view of all, the principles of the New Tes- 
tament may be fully recognized, and the ends for 
! which Churches are collected may be effectually 
accomplished, this labor will always be greatly 
smoothed by a steady regard, on each side, to 
; duties as well as to rights. These are equally im- 
' perative upon ministers, upon subordinate offi- 
I cers, and upon the private members of every 
! Church. Charity, candor, humility, public spirit, 
| zeal, a forgiving spirit, and the desire, the strong 



CH. II.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



desire, of unity and harmony, ought to pervade 
all, as well as a constant remembrance of the 
great and solemn truth that Christ is the Judge 
as well as the Saviour of his Churches. While 
the people are docile ; obedient to the word of 
exhortation; willing to submit, "in the Lord," 
to those who "preside over them," and are 
charged to exercise Christ's discipline ; and 
while ministers are "gentle among them," after 
the example of St. Paul — a gentleness, however, 
which, in his case, winked at no evil, and kept 
back no truth, and compromised no principle, and 
spared no obstinate and incurable offender ; 
while they feed the flock of Christ with sound doc- 
trine, and are intent upon their edification, watch- 
ing over them "as they that must give account," 
and study, live, and labor for no other ends than 
to present that part of the Church committed to 
their care "perfect in Christ Jesus;" every 
Church will fall as it were naturally and without 
effort into its proper "order." Pure and unde- 
filed religion in Churches, like the first poetry, 
creates those subordinate rules by which it is 
afterward guarded and governed ; and the best 
canons of both are those which are dictated by 
the fresh and primitive effusions of their own in- 
/ spiration. 



CHAPTER II. 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY- 
MENTS. 



-THE SACRA- 



The number of sacraments is held by all Pro- 
testants to be but two — Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper ; because they find no other instituted in 
the New Testament, or practiced in the early 
Church. The superstition of the Church of 
Borne has added no fewer than five to the num- 
ber : Confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, 
and extreme unction. 

The word used by the Greek fathers for sacra- 
ment was fivarrjpiov. In the New Testament 
this word always means, as Campbell has shown, 
either a secret — something unknown till re- 
vealed — or the spiritual meaning of some emblem 
or type. In both these senses it is rendered sac- 
r amentum in the Vulgate translation, which shows 
that the latter word was formerly used in a large 
signification. As the Greek term was employed 
in the New Testament to express the hidden 
meaning of an external symbol, as in Revelation 
i. 20, "the mystery of the seven stars," it was 
naturally applied by early Christians to the 
symbolical rite of the Lord's Supper; and as 
somo of the most sacred and retired parts of the 
ancient heathen worship were called mysteries, 



from which all but the initiated were excluded, 
the use of the same term to designate that most 
sacred act of Christian worship, which was 
strictly confined to the approved members of the 
Church, was probably thought peculiarly appro- 
priate. The Latin word sacramentum, in its 
largest sense, may signify a sacred ceremony ; 
and is the appellation, also, of the military oath 
of fidelity taken by the Roman soldiers. For 
both these reasons, probably, the term sacrament 
was adopted by the Latin Christians. For the 
first, because of the peculiar sacredness of the 
Lord's Supper ; and for the second, because of 
that engagement to be faithful to the commands 
of Christ, their heavenly Leader, which was im- 
plied in this ordinance, and impressed upon them 
by so sacred a solemnity. It was, perhaps, from 
the designation of this ordinance by the term 
sacramentum, by the Christians whom Pliny ex- 
amined as to their faith and modes of worship, 
that he thus expresses himself in his letter to 
the Emperor Trajan : "From their affirmations 
I learned that the sum of all their offence, call 
it fault or error, was, that on a day fixed they 
used to assemble before sunrise, and sing toge- 
ther, in alternate responses, hymns to Christ, as 
a Deity ; binding themselves by the solemn en- 
gagements of an oath, not to commit any manner 
of wickedness," etc. The term sacrament was 
also at an early period given to baptism, as well 
as to the Supper of the Lord, and is now con- 
fined among Protestants to these two ordinances 
only. The distinction between sacraments and 
other religious rites is well stated by Bur- 
net: — 

" This difference is to be put between sacra- 
ments and other ritual actions : that whereas 
other rites are badges and distinctions by which 
Christians are known, a sacrament is more than 
a bare matter of form ; as, in the Old Testament, 
circumcision and propitiatory sacrifices were 
things of a different nature and order from all 
the other ritual precepts concerning their cleans- 
ings, the distinctions of days, places, and meats. 
These were, indeed, precepts given them of God ; 
but they were not federal acts of renewing the 
covenant, or reconciling themselves to God. By 
circumcision they received the seal of the cove- 
nant, and were brought under the obligation of 
the whole law ; they were made by it debtors to 
it ; and when by their sins they had provoked 
God's wrath, they were reconciled to him by their 
sacrifices, with which atonement was made, and 
so their sins were forgiven them ; the nature and 
end of those was, to be federal acts, in the offer- 
ing of which tho Jews kept \o their part o( the 
covenant, and in the accepting of whioh God 
maintained it on his part ; so we see a plain dif- 



700 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART IV. 



ference between these and a mere rite, which 
though commanded, yet must pass only for the 
badge of a profession, as the doing of it is an 
act of obedience to a Divine law. Now, in the 
new dispensation, though our Saviour has eased 
us of that law of ordinances, that grievous yoke, 
and those beggarly elements, which were laid upon 
the Jews, yet, since we are still in the body sub- 
ject to our senses, and to sensible things, he has 
appointed some federal actions to be both the 
visible stipulations and professions of our Chris- 
tianity, and the conveyancers to us of the bless- 
ings of the gospel." [On the Articles.) 

It is this view of the two sacraments, as fede- 
ral acts, which sweeps away the five superstitious 
additions that the temerity of the Church of Rome 
has dared to elevate to the same rank of sacred- 
ness and importance. 

As it is usual among men to confirm cove- 
nants by visible and solemn forms, and has been 
so from the most ancient times, so when Almighty 
God was pleased to enter into covenant engage- 
ments with men, he condescended to the same 
methods of affording, on his part, sensible as- 
surances of his fidelity, and to require the same 
from them. Thus, circumcision was the sign 
and seal of the covenant with Abraham ; and 
when the great covenant of grace was made in 
the Son of God with all nations, it was agreeable 
to this analogy to expect that he would institute 
some constantly recurring visible sign, in confir- 
mation of his mercy to us, which should encour- 
age our reliance upon his promises, and have the 
force of a perpetual renewal of the covenant be- 
tween the parties. Such is manifestly the char- 
acter and ends both of the institution of baptism 
and the Lord's Supper ; but as to the five ad- 
ditional sacraments of the Church of Rome, 
"they have not any visible sign or ceremony or- 
dained of God," [Article 25th of the Church of 
England, ) and they stand in no direct connection 
with any covenant engagement entered into by 
him with his creatures. Confirmation rests on 
no scriptural authority at all. Penance, if it 
mean any thing more than repentance, is equally 
unsanctioned by Scripture ; and if it mean "re- 
pentance toward God," it is no more a sacrament 
than faith. Orders, or the ordination of min- 
isters, is an apostolic command, but has in it no 
greater indication of a sacramental act than any 
other such command — say the excommunication 
of obstinate sinners from the Church, which with 
just as good a reason might be elevated into a 
sacrament. Marriage appears to have been made 
by the papists a sacrament for this curious rea- 
son, that the Apostle Paul, when speaking of the 
love and union of husband and wife, and taking 
occasion from that to allude to the love of Christ 



j to his Church, says, " This is a great mystery," 
' which the Vulgate version translates, " Sacra- 
mentum hoc magnum est :" thus they confound 
the large and the restricted sense of the word 
sacrament, and forget that the true "mystery" 
spoken of by the apostle, lies not in marriage, 
but in the union of Christ with his people : 
" This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning 
Christ and the Church." If, however, the use 
of the word "mystery" in this passage by St. 
Paul were sufficient to prove marriage a sacra- 
ment, then the calling of the Gentiles, as Beza 
observes, might be the eighth sacrament, since 
St. Paul terms that "a mystery," (Eph. i. 9,) 
which the Vulgate, in like manner, translates by 
" sacramentumy The last of their sacraments 
is extreme unction, of which it is enough to say 
that it is nowhere prescribed in Scripture ; and 
if it were, has clearly nothing in it of a sacra- 
mental character. The passage in St. James's 
Epistle to which they refer, cannot serve them 
at all ; for the Romanists use extreme unction 
only when all hope of recovery is past ; whereas 
the prayers and the anointing mentioned by St. 
James were resorted to in order to a miraculous 
cure, for life, and not for death. With them, 
therefore, extreme unction is called " the sacra- 
ment of the dying." 

Of the nature of sacraments there are three 
leading views. 

The first is that taken by the Church of Rome. 

According to the doctrine of this Church, the 
sacraments contain the grace they signify, and 
confer grace, ex opere operato, by the work itself, 
upon such as do not put an obstruction by mortal 
sin. "For these sensible and natural things," 
it is declared, "work by the almighty power of 
God in the sacraments what they could not do by 
their own power." Nor is any more necessary 
to this effect, than that the priests, " who make 
and consecrate the sacraments, have an intention 
of doing what the Church doth, and doth intend 
to do." [Cone. Trid. Can. 11.) According, there- 
fore, to this doctrine, the matter of the sacrament 
derives from the action of the priest, in pro- 
nouncing certain words, a divine virtue, provided 
it be the intention of the priest to give to that 
matter such a divine virtue, and this grace is 
conveyed to the soul of every person who re- 
ceives it. Nor is it required of the person re- 
ceiving a sacrament that he should exercise any 
good disposition, or possess faith ; for such is 
conceived to be the physical virtue of a sacrament, 
that, except when opposed by the obstacle of a 
mortal sin, the act of receiving it is alone suffi- 
cient for the experience of its efficacy. This is 
so capital an article of faith with the Romish 
Church, that the Council of Trent anathematizes 



CH. II.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



701 



all who deny that grace is conferred by the 
sacraments from the act itself of receiving them, 
and affirm that faith only in the Divine promises 
is sufficient to the obtaining of grace : "Si qais 
dizerit, per ipsa nova legis sacramenta, ex opere op- 
erate), non conferri gratiam, sed solum fidem divined 
promissionis ad gratiam consequendam sufficere, 
anathema sit." (Cone. Trid. Sess. vii., Can. 8.) 
It is on this ground, also, that the members of 
that Church argue the superiority of the sacra- 
ments of the New Testament to those of the Old ; 
the latter having been effectual only ex opere op- 
erantis, from the piety and faith of the persons 
receiving them, while the former confer grace ex 
opere operato, from their own intrinsic virtue, and 
an immediate physical influence upon the mind 
of the receiver. 

The first great objection to this statement is, 
that it has even no pretence of authority from 
Scripture, and grounds itself wholly upon the 
alleged traditions of the Church of Rome, which, 
in fact, are just what successive inventors of 
superstitious practices have thought proper to 
make them. The second is, that it is decidedly 
anti-scriptural ; for as the only true notion of a 
sacrament is that it is the sign and seal of a 
covenant, and as the saving benefits of the cove- 
nant of grace are made expressly to depend upon 
a true faith, the condition of grace being made 
by the Church of Rome the act of receiving a 
sacrament independent of true faith, she impu- 
dently rejects the great condition of salvation as 
laid down in God's word, and sets up in its place 
another of an opposite kind by mere human au- 
thority. The third is, that it debases an ordi- 
nance of God from a rational service into a mere 
charm, disconnected with every mental exercise, 
and working its effect physically, and not mo- 
rally. The fourth is its licentious tendency ; for 
as a very large class of sins is by the Romish 
Church allowed to be venial, and nothing but a 
mortal sin can prevent the recipient of the sacra- 
ment from receiving the grace of God : men may 
live in the practice of all these venial offences, 
and consequently in an unrenewed habit of soul, 
and yet be assured of the Divine favor and of 
eternal salvation ; thus again boldly contradict- 
ing the whole tenor of the New Testament. 
Finally, whatever privileges the sacraments are 
designed to confer, all of them are made by this 
doctrine to depend, not upon the state of the 
receiver's mind, but upon the " intention" of the 
administrator, who, if not intending to impart 
the physical virtue to the elements, renders the 
sacrament of no avail to the recipient, although 
he performs all the external acts of the ceremony. 

The opposite opinion of this gross and unholy 
doctrine is that maintained by Sooinus, and 



adopted generally by his followers; to which 
also the notions of some orthodox Protestants 
have too carelessly leaned. The view taken on 
the subject of the sacraments by such persons is 
that they differ not essentially from other rites 
and ceremonies of religion, but that their pecu- 
liarity consists in their emblematic character, 
under which they represent what is spiritual and 
invisible, and are memorials of past events. 
Their sole use, therefore, is to cherish pious sen- 
timents, by leading the mind to such meditations 
as are adapted to excite them. Some also add 
that they are the badges of a Christian pro- 
fession, and the instituted means by which 
Christians testify their faith in Christ. 

The fault of the popish opinion is superstitious 
excess : the fault of the latter scheme is that of 
defect. The sacraments are emblematical: they 
are adapted to excite pious sentiments: they 
are memorials, at least the Lord's Supper bears 
this character : they are badges of profession : 
they are the appointed means for declaring our 
faith in Christ ; and so far is this view superior 
to the popish doctrine, that it elevates the sacra- 
ments from the base and degrading character of 
a charm and incantation to that of a spiritual and 
reasonable service, and instead of making them 
substitutes for faith and good works, renders 
them subservient to both. 

But if the sacraments are federal rites — that 
is, if they are covenant transactions — they must 
have a more extensive and a deeper import than 
this view of the subject conveys. If circum- 
cision was "a token" and a "seal" of the cove- 
nant by which God engaged to justify men by 
faith, then, as we shall subsequently show, since 
Christian baptism came in its place, it has pre- 
cisely the same office : if the passover was a 
sign, a pledge or seal, and subsequently a me- 
morial, then these characters will belong to the 
Lord's Supper — the relation of which to the 
"New Testament," or Covenant, "in the blood" 
of our Saviour, is expressly stated by himself. 
What is the import of the terms sign and seal 
will be hereafter considered ; but it is enough 
here to suggest them, to show that the second 
opinion above stated loses sight of these peculi- 
arities, and is therefore defective. 

The third opinion may be stated in the words 
of the formularies of several Protestant Churches. 

The Heidelberg Catechism has the following 
question and reply : 

"What are the sacraments?" 

" They are holy visible signs and seals, ordained 
by God for this end, that he may more fully de- 
clare and seal by them the promise of his gospel 
unto us; to wit, that not only unto all believers 
in general, but unto each of them in particular, 



702 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



he freely giveth remission of sins and life eternal, 
upon the account of that only sacrifice of Christ, 
■which he accomplished upon the cross." 

The Church of England, in her Twenty-fifth 
Article, thus expresses herself : 

" Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only 
badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, 
but rather they be sure witnesses and effectual 
signs of grace and God's will toward us, by the 
which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not 
only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our 
faith in him." 

The Church of Scotland, in the one hundred 
and sixty-second question of her Larger Cate- 
chism, asks, 

""What is a sacrament ?" and replies : 

"A sacrament is a holy ordinance, instituted 
by Christ in his Church, to signify, seal, and ex- 
hibit, unto those within the covenant of grace, 
the benefits of his mediation ; to strengthen and 
increase their faith, and all other graces ; to ob- 
lige them to obedience ; to testify and cherish 
their love and communion one with another ; and 
to distinguish them from those that are with- 
out." 

In all these descriptions of a sacrament, terms 
are employed of just and weighty meaning, which 
will subsequently require notice. Generally, it 
may, however, here be observed that they all as- 
sume that there is in this ordinance an express 
institution of God; that there is this essential 
difference between them and every other sym- 
bolical ceremony, that they are seals as well as 
signs; that is, that they afford pledges, on the 
part of God, of grace and salvation ; that as a 
covenant has two parties, our external acts in 
receiving the sacraments are indications of cer- 
tain states and dispositions of our mind with 
regard to God's covenant, without which none 
can have a personal participation in its benefits, 
and so the sacrament is useless where these are 
not found ; that there are words of institution ; 
and a promise also by which the sign and the 
thing signified are connected together. 

The covenant of which they are the seals is 
that called by the Heidelberg Catechism "the 
promise of the gospel ;" the import of which is 
that God giveth freely to every one that believeth 
remission of sins, with all spiritual blessings, 
and "life eternal, upon the account of that only 
sacrifice of Christ which he accomplished upon 
the cross." 

As signs, they are visible and symbolical ex- 
positions of what the Article of the Church of 
England, above quoted, calls " the grace of God," 
and his "will," that is, his "good-will toward 
us;" or, according to the Church of Scotland, 
" significations of the benefits of his mediation ;" 



[part IV. 

that is, they exhibit to the senses, under appro- 
priate emblems, the same benefits as are ex- 
hibited in another form in the doctrines and 
promises of the word of God, so that " the eye 
may affect and instruct the heart," and that for 
the strong incitement of our faith, our desire, 
and our gratitude. It ought, nevertheless, to 
be remembered that they are not signs merely 
of the grace of God to us, but of our obligations 
to him — obligations, however, still flowing from 
the same grace. 

They are also seals. A seal is a confirming 
sign, or, according to theological language, there 
are in a sacrament a signum significans and a sig- 
num confirmans; the former of which is said, sig- 
nificare, to notify or to declare ; the latter, obsig- 
nate, to set one's seal to, to witness. As, there- 
fore, the sacraments, when considered as signs, 
contain a declaration of the same doctrines and 
promises which the written word of God exhibits, 
but addressed by a significant emblem to the 
senses, so also, as seals or pledges, they confirm 
the same promises which are assured to us by 
God's own truth and faithfulness in his word, 
(which is the main ground of all affiance in his 
mercy.) and by his indwelling Spirit by which 
we are "sealed," and have in our hearts "the 
earnest" of our heavenly inheritance. This is 
done by an external and visible institution ; so 
that God has added these ordinances to the pro- 
mises of his word, not only to bring his merciful 
purpose toward us in Christ to mind, but con- 
stantly to assure us that those who believe in 
him shall be and are made partakers of his 
grace. These ordinances are a pledge to them 
that Christ and his benefits are theirs, while 
they are required, at the same time, by faith as 
well as by the visible sign, to signify their com- 
pliance with his covenant, which may be called 
"setting to their seal." "The sacraments are 
God's seals, as they are ordinances given by him 
for the confirmation of our faith that he would 
be our covenant God ; and they are our seals, 
or we set our seal thereunto, when we visibly 
profess that we give up ourselves to him to be 
his people, and, in the exercise of a true faith, 
look to be partakers of the benefits which Christ 
hath purchased, according to the terms of the 
covenant." — Dr. Rjdgley. 

The passage quoted from the Heidelberg Cate- 
chism has a clause which is of great importance 
in explaining the design of the sacraments. 
They are "visible signs and seals ordained by 
God for this end, that he may more fully declare 
and seal by them the promise of his gospel unto 
us ; to wit, that not only unto all believers in 
general, but to each of them in particular, he freely 
giveth remission of sins and life eternal, upon 



CH. III.] 

the account of that only sacrifice of Christ, 
•which he accomplished upon the cross." For it 
is to be remarked that the administration is to 
particular individuals separately, both in baptism 
and the Lord's Supper: "Take, eat," "drink 
ye all of this ;" so that the institution of the sign 
and seal of the covenant, and the acceptance of 
this sign and seal, are a solemn transaction between 
God and each individual. From which it follows 
that to every one to whom the sign is exhibited a 
seal and pledge of the invisible grace is also 
given ; and every individual who draws near with 
a true heart and full assurance of faith, does in 
his own person enter into God's covenant, and to 
him in particular that covenant stands firm. He 
renews it also in every sacramental act the repe- 
tition of which is appointed ; and being author- 
ized by a Divine and standing institution thus to 
put in his claim to the full grace of the covenant, 
he receives thereby continual assurances of the 
love and faithfulness of a God who changes not, 
but exhibits the same signs and pledges of the 
same covenant of grace, to the constant accept- 
ance of every individual believer throughout all 
the ages of his Church, which is charged with 
the ministration of these sacred symbols of his 
mercy to mankind. This is an important and 
most encouraging circumstance. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE INSTITUTIONS OP THE CHURCH — BAPTISM. 

The obligation of baptism rests upon the ex- 
ample of our Lord, who, by his disciples, bap- 
tized many that by his discourses and miracles 
were brought to profess faith in him as the Mes- 
sias ; upon his solemn command to his apostles 
after his resurrection, " Go and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" Matt, xxviii. 
19 ; and upon the practice of the apostles them- 
selves, who thus showed that they did not under- 
stand baptism, like our Quakers, in a mystical 
sense. Thus St. Peter, in his sermon upon the 
day of pentecost, exhorts, " Repent and be bap- 
tized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts ii. 38. 

As to this sacrament, which has occasioned 
endless and various controversies, three things 
require examination : its nature, its subjects, 
and its mode. 

I. Its nature. The Romanists, agreeably to 
their superstitious opinion as to the efficacy of 
sacraments, consider baptism administered by a 



INSTITUTIONS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



703 



' priest having a good intention as of itself apply- 
\ ing the merits of Christ to the person baptized. 
j According to them, baptism is absolutely neces- 
[ sary to salvation, and they therefore admit its 
validity when administered to a dying child by 
any person present, should there be no priest at 
hand. From this view of its efficacy arises their 
distinction between sins committed before and 
after baptism. The hereditary corruption of 
our nature, and all actual sins committed before 
baptism, are said to be entirely removed by it ; 
> so that if the most abandoned person were to 
1 receive it for the first time in the article of death, 
\ all his sins would be washed away. But all sins 
j committed after baptism, and the infusion of that 
! grace which is conveyed by the sacrament, must 
be expiated by penance. In this notion of re- 
generation, or the washing away of original sin 
by baptism, the Roman Church followed Augus- 
tin; but as he was a predestinarian, he was 
obliged to invent a distinction between those who 
are regenerated, and those who are predestinated 
to eternal life; so that, according to him, al- 
though all the baptized are freed from that cor- 
ruption which is entailed upon mankind by 
Adam's lapse, and experience a renovation of 
mind, none continue to walk in that state but 
the predestinated. The Lutheran Church also 
places the efficacy of this sacrament in regenera- 
tion, by which faith is actually conveyed to the 
soul of an infant. The Church of England in 
her baptismal services has not departed entirely 
from the terms used by the Romish Church, from 
which she separated. She speaks of those who 
are by nature "born in sin," being made by bap- 
tism "the children of grace," which are, how- 
ever, words of equivocal import ; and she gives 
thanks to God " that it hath pleased him to re- 
generate this infant with his Holy Spirit;" pro- 
bably using the term regeneration in the same 
large sense as several of the ancient fathers, and 
not in its modern theological interpretation, which 
is more strict. However this be, a controversy 
has long existed in the English Church as to the 
real opinion of her founders on this point — one 
part of the clergy holding the doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration, and the absolute necessity 
of baptism unto salvation ; the other taking dif- 
ferent views not only of the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture, but also of the import of various expres- 
sions found in the articles, catechisms and offices 
of the Church itself. The Quakers view baptism 
only as spiritual, and thus reject the rite alto- 
gether, as one of tho "beggarly elements" of 
former dispensations ; while the Sooinians regard 
it as a mere mode of professing the religion of 
Christ. Some of them, indeed, consider it as 
calculated to produce a moral effect upon those 



'04 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



■who submit to it, or who witness its administra- 
tion; while others think it so entirely a cere- 
mony of induction into the society of Christians 
from Judaism and paganism, as to be necessary 
only when such conversions take place, so that 
it might be wholly laid aside in Christian nations. 

We have called baptism a federal transaction ; 
an initiation into, and acceptance of, the cove- 
nant of grace, required of us by Christ as a 
visible expression and act of that faith in him 
which he has made a condition of that salvation. 
It is a point, however, of so much importance to 
establish the covenant character of this ordi- 
nance, and so much of the controversy as to the 
proper subjects of baptism depends upon it, that 
we may consider it somewhat at large. 

That the covenant with Abraham, of which 
circumcision was made the sign and seal, (Gen. 
xvii. 7,) was the general covenant of grace, and 
not wholly, or even chiefly, a political and na- 
tional covenant, may be satisfactorily established. 

The first engagement in it was that God would 
"greatly bless" Abraham; which promise, al- 
though it comprehended temporal blessings, re- 
ferred, as we learn from St. Paul, more fully to 
the blessing of his justification by the imputa- 
tion of his faith for righteousness, with all the 
spiritual advantages consequent upon the rela- 
tion which was thus established between him and 
God, in time and eternity. The second promise 
in the covenant was that he should be "the 
father of many nations," which we are also 
taught by St. Paul to interpret more with refer- 
ence to his spiritual seed, the followers of that 
faith whereof cometh justification, than to his 
natural descendants. " That the promise might 
be sure to all the seed, not only to that which is 
by the law, but to that also which is by the faith 
of Abraham, who is the father of us all," — of 
all believing Gentiles as well as Jews. The third 
stipulation in God's covenant with the patriarch 
was the gift to Abraham and to his seed of "the 
land of Canaan," in which the temporal promise 
was manifestly but the type of the higher pro- 
mise of a heavenly inheritance. Hence St. Paul 
says, " By faith he sojourned in the land of pro- 
mise, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and 
Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise;" 
but this "faith" did not respect the fulfilment of 
the temporal promise ; for St. Paul adds, "They 
looked for a city which hath foundations, whose 
builder and maker is God." Heb. xi. 10. The 
next promise was that God would always be "a 
God to Abraham and to his seed after him;" a 
promise which is connected with the highest 
spiritual blessings, such as the remission of sins, 
and the sanctification of our nature, as well as 
with a visible Church state. It is even used to 



[PART IV. 

express the felicitous state of the Church in 
heaven. Rev. xxi. 3. The final engagement in 
the Abrahamic covenant was, that in Abraham's 
"seed all the nations of the earth should be 
blessed;" and this blessing, we are expressly 
taught by St. Paul, was nothing less than the 
justification of all nations, that is, of all believ- 
ers in all nations, by faith in Christ: "And the 
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the 
heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations 
be blessed. So then they which be of faith, are 
blessed with believing Abraham :." they receive 
the same blessing, justification, by the same 
means, faith. Gal. iii. 8, 9. 

This covenant with Abraham, therefore, al- 
though it respected a natural seed, Isaac, from 
whom a numerous progeny was to spring ; and 
an earthly inheritance provided for this issue, 
the land of Canaan ; and a special covenant re- 
lation with the descendants of Isaac, through 
the line of Jacob, to whom Jehovah was to be 
"a God," visibly and specially, and they a visi- 
ble and "peculiar people;" yet was, under all 
these temporal, earthly, and external advantages, 
but a higher and spiritual grace embodying it- 
self under these circumstances, as types of a 
dispensation of salvation and eternal life, to all 
who should follow the faith of Abraham, whose 
justification before God was the pattern of the 
justification of every man, whether Jew or Gen- 
tile, in all ages. 

Now, of this covenant, in its spiritual as well 
as in its temporal provisions, circumcision was 
most certainly the sacrament, that is, the "sign" 
and "seal;" for St. Paul thus explains the 
case : "And he received the sign of circumcision, 
a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had yet being uncircumcised." And as this 
rite was enjoined upon Abraham's posterity, so 
that every "uncircumcised man-child whose 
flesh of his foreskin was not circumcised on the 
eighth day," was to be " cut off from his people," 
by the special judgment of God, and that because 
"he had broken God's covenant" Gen. xvii. 14, 
it therefore follows that this rite was a constant 
publication of God's covenant of grace among 
the descendants of Abraham, and its repetition a 
continual confirmation of that covenant, on the 
part of God, to all practicing it in that faith of 
which it was the ostensible expression. 

As the covenant of grace made with Abraham 
was bound up with temporal promises and privi- 
leges, so circumcision was a sign and seal of the 
covenant in both its parts — its spiritual and its 
temporal, its superior and inferior, provisions. 
The spiritual promises of the covenant continued 
unrestricted to all the descendants of Abraham, 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



705 



/ 



whether by Isaac or by Ishmael ; and still lower 
down, to the descendants of Esau as well as to 
those of Jacob. Circumcision was practiced 
among them all by virtue of its Divine institu- 
tion at first ; and was extended to their foreign 
servants, and to proselytes, as well as to their 
children ; and wherever the sign of the covenant 
of grace was by Divine appointment, there it 
was as a seal of that covenant to all who believ- 
ingly used it ; for we read of no restriction of 
its spiritual blessings, that is, its saving engage- 
ments, to one line of descent from Abraham 
only. But over the temporal branch of the 
covenant, and the external religious privileges 
arising out of it, God exercised a rightful sove- 
reignty, and expressly restricted them first to the 
line of Isaac, and then to that of Jacob, with 
whose descendants he entered into special cove- 
nant by the ministry of Moses. The temporal 
blessings and external privileges comprised under 
general expressions in the covenant with Abra- 
ham, were explained and enlarged under that of 
Moses, while the spiritual blessings remained 
unrestricted as before. This was probably the 
reason why circumcision was reenacted under 
the law of Moses. It was a confirmation of the 
temporal blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, 
now, by a covenant of peculiarity, made over to 
them, while it was still recognized as a consue- 
tudinary rite which had descended to them from 
their fathers, and as the sign and seal of the 
covenant of grace made with Abraham, and with 
all his descendants without exception. This 
double reference of circumcision, both to the 
authority of Moses and to that of the patriarchs, 
is found in the words of our Lord, John vii. 22 : 
"Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, 
not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;" 
or, as it is better translated by Campbell, " Moses 
instituted circumcision among you, (not that it 
is from Moses, but from the patriarchs,) and ye 
circumcise on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath 
a child receive circumcision, that the law of 
31oses may not be violated," etc. 

From these observations the controversy in the 
apostolic Churches respecting circumcision will 
derive much elucidation. 

The covenant with Abraham prescribed cir- 
cumcision as an act of faith in its promises, and 
a pledge [to perform its conditions] [on the part 
of his descendants.] But the object on which 
this faith rested was "the seed of Abraham," in 
whom the nations of the earth were to be 
blessed: which seed, says St. Paul, "is Christ;" 
— Christ as promised, not yet come. When the 
Christ had come, so as fully to enter upon his 
redeeming offices, he could no longer be tho 
object of faith, as still to come; and this leading 
45 



promise of the covenant being accomplished, the 
sign and seal of it vanished away. Nor could 
circumcision be continued in this view by any, 
without an implied denial that Jesus was the 
Christ, the expected seed of Abraham. Circum- 
cision, also, as an institution of Moses, who con- 
tinued it as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic 
covenant, both in its spiritual and temporal pro- 
visions, but, with respect to the latter, made it 
also the sign and seal of the restriction of its 
temporal blessings and peculiar religious privi- 
leges to the descendants of Israel, was terminated 
by the entrance of our Lord upon his office of 
Mediator, in which office all nations were to be 
blessed in him. The Mosaic edition of the cove- 
nant not only guaranteed the land of Canaan, 
but the peculiarity of the Israelites, as the people 
and visible Church of God to the exclusion of 
others, except by proselytism. But when our 
Lord commanded the gospel to be preached to 
"all nations," and opened the gates of the 
"common salvation" to all, whether Gentiles or 
Jews, circumcision, as the sign of a covenant of 
peculiarity and religious distinction, was done 
away also. It had not only no reason remaining, 
but the continuance of the rite involved the 
recognition of exclusive privileges which had 
been terminated by Christ. 

This will explain the views of the Apostle Paul 
on this great question. He declares that in 
Christ there is neither circumcision nor uncir- 
cumcision: that "neither circumcision availeth 
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which 
worketh by love :" faith in the seed of Abraham 
already come and already engaged in his media- 
torial and redeeming work ; faith, by virtue of 
which the Gentiles came into the Church of 
Christ on the same terms as the Jews themselves, 
and were justified and saved. The doctrine of 
the non-necessity of circumcision he applies to 
the Jews as well as to the Gentiles, although he 
specially resists the attempts of the Judaizers to 
impose this rite upon the Gentile converts, in 
which he was supported by the decision of the 
Holy Spirit, when the appeal upon this question 
was made to " the apostles and elders at Jerusa- 
lem," from the Church at Antioch. At the same 
time it is clear that he takes two different views of 
the practice of circumcision, as it was continued 
among many of the first Christians. The first 
is that strong one which is expressed in Gal. v. 
2-4, " Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye 
be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; 
for I testify again to every man that is circum- 
cised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever 
of you are justified by the law: ye are fallen 
from grace." The second is that milder view 



'06 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



which he himself must have had when he cir- 
cumcised Timothy to render him more acceptable 
to the Jews ; and which also appears to have led 
him to abstain from all allusion to this practice 
when writing his epistle to the believing Hebrews, 
although many, perhaps most of them, continued 
to circumcise their children, as did the Jewish 
Christians for a long time afterward. These differ- 
ent views of circumcision, held by the same per- 
son, may be explained by considering the different 
principles on which circumucision might be prac- 
ticed after it had become an obsolete ordinance. 

1. It might be taken in the simple view of its 
first institution as the sign and seal of the 
Abrahamic covenant ; and then it was to be con- 
demned as involving a denial that Abraham's 
seed, the Christ, had already come, since upon 
his coming every old covenant gave place to the 
new covenant introduced by him. 

2. It might be practiced and enjoined as the 
sign and seal of the Mosaic covenant, which was 
still the Abrahamic covenant with its spiritual 
blessings, but with restriction of its temporal 
promises and special ecclesiastical privileges to 
the line of Jacob, with a law of observances 
which was obligatory upon all entering that 
covenant by circumcision. In that case it in- 
volved, in like manner, the notion of the continu- 
ance of an old covenant, after the establishment 
of the new ; for thus St. Paul states the case in 
Gal. iii. 19. "Wherefore then serveth the law? 
It was added because of transgressions till 
the seed should come." After that, therefore, 
it had no effect: it had waxed old, and had 
vanished away. 

8. Again : Circumcision might imply an obli- 
gation to observe all the ceremonial usages and 
the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, along 
with a general belief in the mission of Christ, as 
necessary to justification before God. This 
appears to have been the view of those among 
the Galatian Christians who submitted to circum- 
cision, and of the Jewish teachers who enjoined 
it upon them ; for St, Paul in that epistle con- 
stantly joins circumcision with legal observances, 
and as involving an obligation to do "the whole 
law" in order to justification. "I testify again 
to every man that is circumcised, that he is a 
debtor to do the whole law : whosoever of you 
are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." 
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the 
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus 
Christ." Gal. ii. 16. To all persons, therefore, 
practicing circumcision in this view, it was obvi- 
ous that "Christ was become of no effect:" the 
very principle of justification by faith alone in 
him was renounced, even while his divine mission 
was still admitted. I 



[part iv. 

4. But there are two grounds on which circum- 
cision may be conceived to have been innocently, 
though not wisely, practiced among the Christian 
Jews. The first was that of preserving an 
ancient national distinction, on which they valued 
themselves; and were a converted Jew in the 
present day disposed to perform that rite upon 
his children for this purpose only, renouncing in 
the act all consideration of it as a sign and seal 
of the old covenants, or as obliging to ceremonial 
acts in order to justification, no one would cen- 
sure him with severity. It appears clear that it 
was under some such view that St. Paul circum- 
cised Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess : he 
did it because of "the Jews which were in those 
quarters:" that is, because of their national 
prejudices, "for they knew that his father was 
a Greek." The second was a lingering notion 
that, even in the Christian Church, the Jews who 
believed would still retain some degree of emi- 
nence, some superior relation to God : a notion 
which, however unfounded, was not one which 
demanded direct rebuke when it did not proudly 
refuse spiritual communion with the converted 
Gentiles, but was held by men who "rejoiced 
that God had granted to the Gentiles repentance 
unto life." These considerations may account 
for the silence of St, Paul on the subject of cir- 
cumcision in his epistle to the Hebrews. Some 
of them continued to practice that rite, but they 
were probably belie vers of the class just men- 
tioned ; for had he thought that the rite was 
continued among them on any principle which 
affected the fundamental doctrines of Christian- 
ity, he would no doubt have been equally prompt 
and fearless in pointing out that apostasy from 
Christ which was implied in it, as when he wrote 
to the Galatians. 

Not only might circumcision be practiced with 
views so opposite that one might be wholly inno- 
cent, although an infirmity of prejudice, the 
other such as would involve a rejection of the 
doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, but 
some other Jewish observances also stood in the 
same circumstances. St. Paul, in his epistle to 
the Galatians, a part of his writings from which 
we obtain the most information on these ques- 
tions, grounds his "doubts" whether the mem- 
bers of that Church were not seeking to be 
"justified by the law" upon their observing 
"days, and months, and times, and years." Had 
he done more than "doubt," he would have ex- 
pressed himself more positively. He saw their 
danger on this point: he saw that they were 
taking steps tc this fatal result by such an ob- 
servance of these "days," etc., as had a strong 
leaning and dangerous approach to that depend- 
ence upon them for justification, which would 



en. in.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



to: 



destroy their faith in Christ's solely sufficient 
sacrifice ; but his very doubting, not of the fact 
of their being addicted to these observances, but 
of the animus with which they regarded them, 
supposes it possible, however dangerous this 
Jewish conformity might be, that they might be 
observed for reasons which would still consist 
with their entire reliance upon the merits of 
Christ for salvation. Even he himself, strongly 
as he resisted the imposition of this conformity 
to Jewish customs upon the converts to Christi- 
anity as a matter of necessity, yet in practice 
must have conformed to many of them when no 
sacrifice of principle was understood ; for, in 
order to gain the Jews, he became "as a Jew." 

From these observations, which have been 
somewhat digressive, we return to observe that 
not only was the Abrahamic covenant, of which 
circumcision was the sign and seal, a covenant 
of grace, but that when this covenant in its an- 
cient form was done away in Christ, then the old 
sign and seal peculiar to that form was by con- 
sequence abolished. If then baptism be not the 
initiatory sign and seal of the same covenant in 
its new and perfect form, as circumcision was of 
the old, this new covenant has no such initiatory 
rite or sacrament at all ; since the Lord's Supper 
is not initiatory, but, like the sacrifices of old, is 
of regular and habitual observance. Several 
passages of Scripture, and the very nature of 
the ordinance of baptism, will, however, show 
that baptism is to the new covenant what circum- 
cision was to the old, and took its place by the 
appointment of Christ. 

This may be argued from our Lord's commis- 
sion to his apostles : " Go ye therefore and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever 
I have commanded you." Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel 
to every creature : he that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved." Mark xvi. 15, 16. 

To understand the force of these words of our 
Lord, it must be observed, that the gate of "the 
common salvation" was only now for the first 
time going to be opened to the Gentile nations. 
He himself had declared that in his personal 
ministry he was not sent but to "the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel;" and he had restricted 
his disciples in like manner, not only from min- 
istering to the Gentiles, but from entering any 
city of the Samaritans. By what means there- 
fore were "all nations" now to be brought into 
the Church of God, which from henceforth was 
most truly to be catholic or universal ? Plainly, 
by baptizing them that believed the "good news," 
and accepted the terms of tho new covenant. 



This is apparent from the very words ; and thus 
was baptism expressly made the initiatory rite 
by which believers of "all nations" were to be 
introduced into the Church and covenant of 
grace ; an office in which it manifestly took the 
place of circumcision, which heretofore, even 
from the time of Abraham, had been the only 
initiatory rite into the same covenant. Moses 
reenacted circumcision : our Lord not only docs 
not reenact it, but, on the contrary, he appoints 
another mode of entrance into the covenant in 
its new and perfected form, and that so expressly 
as to amount to a formal abrogation of the an- 
cient sign, and the putting of baptism in its 
place. The same argument may be maintained 
from the words of our Lord to Nicodemus, "Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." By 
the kingdom of God, our Lord, no doubt, in the 
highest sense, means the future state of felicity ; 
but he uses this phrase to express the state of 
his Church on earth, which is the gate to that 
celestial kingdom ; and generally indeed speaks 
of his Church on earth under this mode of ex- 
pression, rather than of the heavenly state. If 
then he declares that no one can "enter" into 
that Church but by being "born of water and of 
the Holy Spirit," which heavenly gift followed 
upon baptism when received in true faith, he 
clearly makes baptism the mode of initiation into 
his Church in this passage as in the last quoted ; 
and in both he assigns to it the same office as 
circumcision in the Church of the Old Testament, 
whether in its patriarchal or Mosaic form. 

A further proof that baptism has precisely 
the same federal and initiatory character as cir- 
cumcision, and that it was instituted for the same 
ends, and in its place, is found in Colossians ii. 
10-12: "And ye are complete in him, which is 
the head of all principality and power : in whom 
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
made without hands, in putting off the body of 
the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
buried with him in baptism" etc. Here baptism 
is also made the initiatory rite of the new dis- 
pensation, that by which the Colossians were 
joined to Christ, in whom they are said to be 
" complete ;" and so certain is it that baptism has 
the same office and import now as circumcision 
formerly, with this difference only, that the ob- 
ject of faith was then future, and now it ia 
Christ as come, that the apostle expressly calls 
baptism "the circumcision of Christ" tho circum- 
cision instituted by him, which phrase he puts 
out of the reach of frivolous criticism, by adding 
exegetically, "buried with him in baptism." For 
unless the apostle here calls baptism "the cir- 
cumcision of Christ," he asserts that wo "put off 



708 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



the body of the sins of the flesh," that is, be- 
come new creatures, by virtue of our Lord's own 
personal circumcision : but if this be absurd, 
then the only reason for which he can call bap- 
tism "the circumcision of Christ," or Christian 
circumcision, is, that it has taken the place of 
the Abrahamic circumcision, and fulfils the same 
office of introducing believing men into God's 
covenant, and entitling them to the enjoyment of 
spiritual blessings. 

But let us also quote Gal. iii. 27-29 : "For as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ, 
have put on Christ : there is neither Jew nor 
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
neither male nor female, for ye are all one in 
Christ Jesus ; and if ye be Christ's," by thus 
being "baptized" and by "putting on'' Christ, 
"then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs accord- 
ing to the promise." 

The argument here is also decisive. It cannot 
be denied that it was by circumcision believingly 
submitted to, that *' strangers" or heathens, as 
well as Jews, became the spiritual " seed of Ab- 
raham," and "heirs" of the same spiritual and 
heavenly "promises.'" But the same office in 
this passage is ascribed to baptism also believ- 
ingly submitted to ; and the conclusion is there- 
fore inevitable. The same covenant character of 
each rite is here also strongly marked, as well 
as that the covenant is the same, although under 
a different mode of administration. In no other 
way could circumcision avail any thing under 
the Abrahamic covenant, than as it was that vis- 
ible act by which God's covenant to justify men 
by faith in the promised seed was accepted by 
them. It was therefore a part of a federal trans- 
action ; that outward act which he who offered 
a covenant engagement so gracious required as 
a solemn declaration of the -acceptance of the 
covenanted grace upon the covenanted condi- 
tions. It was thus that the Abrahamic covenant 
was offered to the acceptance of all who heard 
it, and thus that they were to declare their ac- 
ceptance of it. In the same manner there is a 
standing offer of the same covenant of mercy 
wherever the gospel is preached. The "good 
news" which it contains is that of a promise, an 
engagement, a covenant on the part of God to 
remit sin, and to save all that believe in Christ. 
To the covenant in this new form he also requires 
n a visible and formal act of acceptance, which act, 
when expressive of the required faith, makes us 
parties to the covenant, and entitles us through 
the faithfulness of God to its benefits. " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;" or, as in 
the passage before us, "As many of you as 
have been baptized into Christ, have put on 
Christ; and if ye be Christ'?, then are ye 



[PART IV. 

' Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro- 
mise." 

We have the same view of baptism as an act 
of covenant acceptance, and as it relates to God's 
gracious engagement to justify the ungodly by 
faith in his Son, in the often-quoted passage in 1 
Peter iii. 20: "Which sometime were disobe- 
dient, when once the long-suffering of God waited 
in the days of Xoah, while the a^k was a prepar- 
| ing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved 
by water. The like figure whereunto even bap- 
| tism doth also now save us, (not the putting away 
! of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good 
; conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of 
; Jesus Christ." 

When St. Peter calls baptism the "figure," 
| avTcrv-ov, the antitype of the transaction by 
which Xoah and his family were saved from per- 
. ishing with the ungodly and unbelieving world, 
he had doubtless in mind the faith of Xoah, and 
■ that under the same view as the Apostle Paul, in 
Heb. xi. : "By faith Xoah, being warned of God 
of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, pre- 
pared an ark to the saving of his house ; by the 
which" act of faith " he condemned the world, 
and became heir of the righteousness zchich is by 
faith ;" an expression of the same import as if 
he had said, "by which act of faith he was jus- 
tified before God." It has been already explained 
. in another place (Part ii., chap, xxii., p. 460) in 
I what way Xoah's preparing of the ark, and his 
| faith in the Divine promise of preservation, were 
j indicative of his having that direct faith in the 
j Christ to come, of which the Apostle Paul dis- 
j courses in the eleventh of the Hebrews, as that 
' which characterized all " the elders," and by 
i which they obtained their " good report" in the 
Church. His preservation and that of his family 
] was so involved in the fulfilment of the more an- 
' cient promise respecting the seed of the woman, 
! and the deliverance of man from the power of 
i Satan, that we are warranted to conclude that 
his faith in the promise respecting his own deliv- 
erance from the deluge was supported by his 
faith in that greater promise, which must have 
fallen to the ground had the whole race perished 
without exception. His building of the ark, and 
entering into it with his family, are therefore 
considered by St. Paul as the visible expression 
of his faith in the ancient promises of God re- 
specting Messiah ; and for this reason baptism 
is called by St. Peter, without any allegory at all, 
but in the sobriety of fact, " the antitype" of this 
transaction ; the one exactly answering to the 
other, as an external expression of faith in the 
same objects and the same promises. 

But the apostle does not rest in this general 
! representation. He proceeds to express, in a par- 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OP CHRISTIANITY. 



'09 



/ 



ticular and most forcible manner, the nature of 
Christian baptism — " not the putting away of 
the filth of the flesh ; but the answer of a good 
conscience toward God, by the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ." Now, whether we take the word 
kirepuTiifia, rendered in our translation "answer," 
for a demand or requirement ; or for the answer to 
a question or questions ; or in the sense of stipu- 
lation; the general import of the passage is 
nearly the same. If the first, then the meaning 
of the apostle is, that baptism is not the putting 
away of the filth of the flesh, not a mere external 
ceremony, but a rite which demands or requires 
something of us, in order to the attainment of a 
" good conscience." What that is, we learn from 
the words of our Lord : it is faith in Christ : 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;" 
which faith is the reliance of a penitent upon 
the atonement of the Saviour, who thus submits 
with all gratitude and truth to the terms of the 
evangelical covenant. If we take the second 
sense, we must lay aside the notion of some lex- 
icographers and commentators, who think that 
there is an allusion to the ancient practice of de- 
manding of the candidates for baptism whether 
they renounce their sins, and the service of Sa- 
tan, with other questions of the same import; 
for, ancient as these questions may be, they are 
probably not so ancient as the time of the apos- 
tle. We know, however, from the instance of 
Philip and the eunuch, that there was an explicit 
requirement of faith, and as explicit an answer or 
confession : "And Philip said, If thou believest 
with all thy heart, thou mayest; and he an- 
swered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God." Every administration of baptism 
indeed implied this demand ; and baptism, if we 
understand St. Peter to refer to this circumstance, 
was such an " answer" to the interrogations of 
the administrator, as expressed a true and evan- 
gelical faith. If we take the third rendering of 
"stipulation" which has less to support it criti- 
cally than either of the others, still, as the pro- 
fession of faith was a condition of baptism, that 
profession had the full force of a formal stipula- 
tion, since all true faith in Christ requires an en- 
tire subjection to him as Lord, as well as Saviour. 
Upon this passage, however, a somewhat clearer 
light may be thrown, by understanding the word 
kirepurnfia in the sense of that which asks, re- 
quires, seeks, something beyond itself. The verb 
from which it is derived signifies to ask or re- 
quire ; but eKEpuTn/J-a occurs nowhere else in the 
New Testament ; and but once in the version of 
the Seventy, Dan. iv. 14, [17,] where, however, it is 
used so as to be fully illustrative of the meaning of 
St. Peter. Nebuchadnezzar was to be humbled 
by being driven from men to associate with tho 



beasts of the field ; and the vision in which this 
was represented concludes, " This matter is by 
the decree of the watchers, and the demand, to 
kirepuTn/j-a, by the word of the Holy Ones, to the 
intent that the living may know, Iva yvdatv ol 
Zfivreg, that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom 
of men." The Chaldaic word, like the Greek, 
is from a word which signifies to ask, to require, 
and may be equally expressed by the word petitio, 
which is the rendering of the Vulgate, or by 
postulatum. There was an end, an "intent," for 
which the humbling of the Babylonian king was 
required " by the word of the Holy Ones," that 
by the signal punishment of the greatest earthly 
monarch, " the living might know that the Most 
High ruleth in the kingdom of men." In like 
manner baptism has an end, an "intent," "not 
the putting away of the filth of the flesh," but ob- 
taining "a good conscience toward God;" and it 
requires, claims this good conscience through that 
faith in Christ whereof cometh remission of sins, 
the cleansing of the "conscience from dead 
works," and those supplies of supernatural aid 
by which, in future, men may " live in all good 
conscience before God." It is thus that we see 
how St. Peter preserves the correspondence be- 
tween the act of Noah in preparing the ark as 
an act of faith by which he was justified, and 
the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which 
is also obviously an act of faith, in order to the 
remission of sins, or the obtaining of a good con- 
science before God. This is further strengthened 
by his immediately adding, "by the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ:" a clause which our translators, 
by the use of a parenthesis, connect with "bap- 
tism doth also now save us ;" so that their mean- 
ing is, we are saved by baptism through the re- 
surrection of Jesus Christ; and as he "rose 
again for our justification, " this sufficiently shows 
the true sense of the apostle, who, by our being 
"saved," clearly means our being justified by faith. 

The text, however, needs no parenthesis, and 
the true sense may be thus expressed: "The 
antitype to which water of the flood, baptism, 
doth now save us ; not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh, but that which intently seeks 
a good conscience toward God, through faith in 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ." But however 
a particular word may be disposed of, tho whole 
passage can only be consistently taken to teach 
us that baptism is the outward sign of our en- 
trance into God's covenant of mercy : and that 
when it is an act of true faith, it becomes an in- 
strument of salvation, like that aot of faith in 
Noah, by which, when moved with tear, he " pre- 
pared an ark to the saving of his house." and 
survived the destruction of an unbelieving world. 

From what has been said, it will then follow 



710 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART TV. 



that the Abrahamic covenant and the Christian I 
covenant is the same gracious engagement on the ; 
part of God to show mercy to man, and to be- • 
stow npon him eternal life, through faith in 
Christ as the true sacrifice for sin, differing only , 
in circumstances ; and that as the sign and seal ' 
of this covenant under the old dispensation was 
circumcision, under the new it is baptism, which ; 
has the same federal character, performs the 
same initiatory office, and is instituted by the 
same authority. For none could have authority j 
to lay aside the appointed seal but the Being 
who first instituted it, who changed the form of i 
the covenant itself, and who has in fact abro- ' 
gated the old seal by the appointment of another, 
even baptism, which is made obligatory upon 
all nations to whom the gospel is preached, and 
is to continue to "the end of the world." 

This argument is sufficiently extended to show 
that the Antipedobaptist writers have in vain 
endeavored to prove that baptism has not been 
appointed in the room of circumcision — a point 
on which, indeed, they were bound to employ all 
their strength ; for the substitution of baptism 
for circumcision being established, one of their 
main objections to infant baptism, as we shall 
just now show, is rendered wholly nugatory. 

But it is not enough, in stating the nature 
of the ordinance of Christian baptism, to con- 
sider it generally as an act by which man enters 
into God's covenant of grace. Under this gene- 
ral view several particulars are contained, which 
it is of great importance rightly to understand. 
Baptism, both as a sign and seal, presents an en- 
tire correspondence with the ancient rite of cir- 
cumcision. Let it then be considered, 

1. As a sign. Under this view, circumcision 
indicated, by a visible and continued rite, the 
placability of God toward his sinful creatures ; 
and held out the promise of justification, by faith 
alone, to every truly penitent offender. It went 
farther, and was the sign of sanctification, or the 
taking away of the pollution of sin, "the super- 
fluity of naughtiness," as well as the pardon of 
actual offences, and thus was the visible emblem 
of a regenerate mind and a renewed life. This 
will appear from the following passages: "For i 
he is not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither i 
is that circumcision which is outward in the 
flesh ; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; 
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, ! 
but of God." Rom. ii. 28. "And the Lord thy ! 
God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart , 
of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all 
thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou ' 
mayest live." Deut. xxx. 6. "Circumcise your- j 
selves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins 



of your heart, ye men of Judah, and inhabitants 
of Jerusalem." Jer. iv. 4. It was the sign also 
of peculiar relation to God as his people : "Only 
the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love 
them, and he chose their seed after them, even 
you above all people, as it is this day. Circum- 
cise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and 
be no more stiff-necked." Deut. x. 15, 16. 

In all these respects, baptism, as a sign of the 
new covenant, corresponds to circumcision. Like 
that, its administration is a constant exhibition 
of the placability of God to man ; like that, it is 
the initiatory rite into a covenant which promises 
pardon and salvation to a true faith, of which it 
is the outward profession ; like that, it is the 
symbol of regeneration, the washing away of sin, 
and "the renewing of the Holy Ghost;" and 
like that, it is a sign of peculiar relation to God, 
Christians becoming, in consequence, "a chosen 
generation, a peculiar people" — his "Church" on 
earth, as distinguished from "the world." "For 
we," says the apostle, "are the circumcision," 
we are that peculiar people and Church now, 
which was formerly distinguished by the sign of 
circumcision, "who worship God in the spirit, 
and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confi- 
dence in the flesh." 

But as a sign, baptism is more than circum- 
cision, because the covenant, under its new dis- 
pensation, was not only to offer pardon upon 
believing, deliverance from the bondage of 
fleshly appetites, and a peculiar spiritual rela- 
tion to God, all which we find under the Old 
Testament, but also to bestow the Holy Spirit, in 
his fulness, upon all believers ; and of this effu- 
sion of "the power from on high," baptism was 
made the visible sign; and perhaps for this, 
among some other obvious reasons, was substi- 
tuted for circumcision, because baptism by effu- 
sion or pouring (the New Testament mode of 
baptizing, as we shall afterward show) was a 
natural symbol of this heavenly gift. The bap- 
tism of John had special reference to the Holy 
Spirit, which was not to be administered by him, 
but by Christ who should come after him. This 
gift only honored John's baptism once, in the 
extraordinary case of our Lord ; but it constantly 
followed upon the baptism administered by the 
apostles of Christ, after his ascension, and the 
sending of "the promise of the Father." Then 
Peter said unto them, "Repent and be baptized 
every one of you for the remission of sins, and 
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 
ii. 38. "According to his mercy he saved us, 
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing 
of the Holy Ghost, which he shed," or poured out, 
"on us abundantly through Jesus Christ," For 
this reason Christianity is called "the ministra- 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY 



711 



tion of the Spirit ;" and so far is this from being j 
confined to the miraculous gifts often bestowed ! 
in the first age of the Church, that it is made the 
standing and prominent test of true Christianity 
to "be led by the Spirit:" "If any man have 
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Of 
this great new covenant blessing, baptism was 
therefore eminently the sign ; and it represented 
" the pouring out" of the Spirit, " the descending" 
of the Spirit, the "falling" of the Spirit "upon 
men," by the mode in which it was administered, 
the pouring of water from above upon the sub- 
jects baptized. 
\/ 2. As a seal also, or confirming sign, baptism 
answers to circumcision. By the institution of 
the latter, a pledge was constantly given by the 
Almighty to bestow the spiritual blessings of 
which the rite was the sign, pardon and sancti- 
fication through faith in the future seed of Abra- 
ham, peculiar relation to Him as "his people," 
and the heavenly inheritance. Of the same 
blessings, baptism is also the pledge, along with 
that higher dispensation of the Holy Spirit which 
it specially represents in emblem. Thus in bap- 
tism there is on the part of God a visible assur- 
ance of his faithfulness to his covenant stipula- 
tions. But it is our seal also : it is that act by 
which we make ourselves parties to the covenant, 
and thus " set to our seal that God is true." In 
this respect it binds us, as, in the other, God 
mercifully binds himself for the stronger assur- 
ance of our faith. We pledge ourselves to trust 
wholly in Christ for pardon and salvation, and to 
obey his laws — "teaching them 'to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you :' " 
in that rite also we undergo a mystical death 
unto sin, a mystical separation from the world, 
which St. Paul calls being "buried with Christ 
in or by baptism;" and a mystical resurrection 
to newness of life, through Christ's resurrection 
from the dead. Thus in circumcision an obliga- 
tion of faith in the promises made to Abraham, 
and an obligation to holiness of life, and to the 
observance of the Divine laws, was contracted ; 
and Moses, therefore, in a passage above quoted, 
argues from that peculiar visible relation of the 
Israelites to God, produced by outward circum- 
cision, to the duty of circumcising the heart: 
"The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love 
them, and he chose their seed after them, even 
you above all people: circumcise, therefore, 
the foreskin of your heart." Deut. x. 15. 

If, then, we bring all these considerations 
under one view, we shall find it sufficiently esta- 
blished that baptism is the sign and seal of the 
covenant of grace under its perfected dispensation ; 
that it is the grand initiatory act by which we 
enter into this covenant, in order to claim all its 



spiritual blessings, and to take upon ourselves 
all its obligations; that it was appointed by 
Jesus Christ in a manner which plainly put it in 
the place of circumcision; that it is now the 
means by which men become Abraham's spirit- 
ual children, and heirs with him of the promise, 
which was the office of circumcision, until "the 
seed," the Messiah, should come ; and that bap- 
tism is therefore expressly called by St. Paul 
"the circumcision of Christ," or Christian cir- 
cumcision, in a sense which can only import that 
baptism has now taken the place of the Abra- 
hamic rite. 

The only objection of any plausibility which 
has been urged by Antipedobaptist writers 
against the substitution of baptism for circum- 
cision, is thus stated by Mr. Booth : " If baptism 
succeeded in the place of circumcision, how came 
it that both of them were in full force at the 
same time ; that is, from the commencement of 
John's ministry to the death of Christ ? For 
one thing to come in the room of another, and 
the latter to hold its place, is an odd kind of 
succession. Admitting the succession pretended, 
how came it that Paul circumcised Timothy, 
after he had been baptized ?" That circumcision 
was practiced along with baptism from John the 
Baptist's ministry to the death of Christ may be 
very readily granted, without affecting the ques- 
tion ; for baptism could not be made the sign and 
seal of the perfected covenant of grace, until 
that covenant was both perfected and fully ex- 
plained and proposed for acceptance, which did 
not take place until after " the blood of the ever- 
lasting covenant" was shed, and our Lord had 
opened its full import to the apostles who were 
to publish it " to all nations" after his resurrec- 
tion. Accordingly we find that baptism was 
formally made the rite of initiation into this 
covenant for the first time when our Lord gave 
commission to his disciples to "go and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- 
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" 
"he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
John's baptism was upon profession of repent- 
ance, and faith in the speedy appearance of Him 
who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and 
fire ; and our Lord's baptism by his disciples was 
administered to those Jews that believed on him 
as the Messias, all of whom, like the apostles, 
waited for a fuller development of his character 
and offices. For since the new covenant was not 
then fully perfected, it could not be proposed in 
any other way than to prepare them that be- 
lieved in Christ, by its partial but increasing 
manifestation in the discourses of our Lord, for 
the full declaration both of its benefits and ob- 
ligations; which declaration was not made until 



712 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



after his resurrection. Whatever the nature and 
intent of that baptism -which our Lord by his 
disciples administered might be, (a point on which 
we have no information,) like that of John, it 
looked to something yet to come, and was not 
certainly that baptism in the name " of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which 
was afterward instituted as the standing initia- 
tory rite into the Christian Church. As for the 
circumcision of Timothy, and the practice of 
that rite among many of the Hebrew believers, 
it has already been accounted for. If indeed the 
Baptist writers could show that the apostles 
sanctioned the practice of circumcision as a seal 
of the old covenant, either as it was Abrahamic 
or Mosaic or both, then there would be some 
force in the argument that one could not succeed 
the other, if both were continued under inspired 
authority. But we have the most decided testi- 
mony of the Apostle Paul against any such use 
of circumcision ; and he makes it, when prac- 
ticed in that view, a total abnegation of Christ 
and the new covenant. It follows, then, that 
when circumcision was continued by any conniv- 
ance of the apostles — and certainly they did no 
more than connive at it — it was practiced upon 
some grounds which did not regard it as the seal 
of any covenant, from national custom or pre- 
judice, a feeling to which the Apostle Paul him- 
self yielded in the case of Timothy. He cir- 
cumcised him, but not from any conviction of 
necessity, since he uniformly declared circum- 
cision to have vanished away with that dispensa- 
tion of the covenant of which it was the seal 
through the bringing in of a better hope. 

We may here add, that an early father, Justin 
Martyr, takes the same view of the substitution 
of circumcision by Christian baptism: "We, 
Gentiles," Justin observes, "have not received 
that circumcision according to the flesh, but that 
which is spiritual ; and moreover, for indeed we 
were sinners, we have received this in baptism, 
through God's mercy, and it is enjoined on all to 
receive it in like manner." 

II. The nature of baptism having been thus 
explained, we may proceed to consider its sub- 
jects. 

That believers are the proper subjects of bap- 
tism, as they were of circumcision, is beyond 
dispute. As it would have been a monstrous 
perversion of circumcision to have administered 
it to any person, being of adult age, who did not 
believe in the true and living God, and in the 
expected "seed of Abraham," in whom all na- 
tions were to be blessed ; so is faith in Christ 
also an indispensable condition for baptism in 
all persons of mature age ; and no minister is at 
liberty to take from the candidate the visible 



[PART IV. 

pledge of his acceptance of the terms of God's 
covenant, unless he has been first taught its 
nature, promises, and obligations, and gives suffi- 
cient evidence of the reality of his faith, and the 
sincerity of his profession of obedience. Hence 
the administration of baptism was placed by our 
Lord only in the hands of those who were "to 
preach the gospel," that is, of those who were to 
declare God's method of saving men "through 
faith in Christ," and to teach them "to observe 
all things, whatsoever Christ had commanded 
them." Circumcision was connected with teach- 
ing, and belief of the truth taught ; and so also 
is Christian baptism. 

The question, however, which now requires 
consideration is, whether the infant children of 
believing parents are entitled to be made parties 
to the covenant of grace, by the act of their pa- 
rents, and the administration of baptism ? 

In favor of infant baptism, the following argu- 
ments may be adduced. Some of them are more 
direct than others ; but the reader will judge 
whether, taken all together, they do not estab- 
lish this practice of the Church, continued to us 
from the earliest ages, upon the strongest basis 

Of SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY. 

1. As it has been established that baptism was 
put by our Lord himself and his apostles in the 
room of circumcision, as an initiatory rite into the 
covenant of grace ; and as the infant children of 
believers under the Old Testament were entitled 
to the covenant benefits of the latter ordinance, 
and the children of Christian believers are not 
expressly excluded from entering into the same 
covenant by baptism ; the absence of such an 
explicit exclusion is sufficient proof of their title 
to baptism. 

For if the covenant be the same in all its spirit- 
ual blessings, and an express change was made 
by our Lord in the sign and seal of that cove- 
nant, but no change at all in the subjects of it, no 
one can have a right to carry that change farther 
than the Lawgiver himself, and to exclude the 
children of believers from entering his covenant 
by baptism, when they had always been entitled 
to enter into it by circumcision. This is a cen- 
surable interference with the authority of God; 
a presumptuous attempt to fashion the new dis- 
pensation in this respect so as to conform it to a 
mere human opinion of fitness and propriety. 
For to say that, because baptism is directed to 
be administered to believers when adults are 
spoken of, it follows that children who are not 
capable of personal faith are excluded from bap- 
tism, is only to argue in the same manner as if 
it were contended that because circumcision, 
when adults were the subjects, was only to be 
administered to believers, therefore infants were 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



713 



excluded from that ordinance, which is contrary 
to the fact. This argument will not certainly 
exclude them from baptism by "way of inference, 
and by no act of the Maker and Mediator of the 
covenant are they shut out. 

2. If it had been intended to exclude infants 
from entering into the new covenant by baptism, 
the absence of every prohibitory expression to 
this effect in the New Testament must have been 
misleading to all men, and especially to the Jew- 
ish believers. 

Baptism was no new ordinance when our Lord 
instituted it, though he gave to it a particular 
designation. It was in his practice to adapt, in 
several instances, what he found already estab- 
lished, to the uses of his religion. "A parable, 
for instance, was a Jewish mode of teaching. 
Who taught by parables equal to Jesus Christ ? 
And what is the most distinguished and appro- 
priate rite of his religion, but a service grafted 
on a passover custom among the Jews of his 
day ? It was not ordained by Moses that a part 
of the bread they had used in the passover 
should be the last thing they ate after that sup- 
per ; yet this our Lord took as he found it, and 
converted it into a memorial of his body. The 
' cup of blessing' has no authority whatever from 
the original institution ; yet this our Lord found 
in use, and adopted as a memorial of his blood : 
taken together, these elements form one com- 
memoration of his death. Probability, arising 
to rational certainty, therefore, would lead us to 
infer, that whatever rite Jesus appointed as the 
ordinance of admission into the community of 
his followers, he would also adopt from some 
service already existing — from some token fami- 
liar among the people of his nation. 

"In fact, we know that 'divers baptisms' ex- 
isted under the law, and we have every reason to 
believe that the admission of proselytes into 
the profession of Judaism was really and truly 
marked by a washing with water in a ritual and 
ceremonial manner. I have always understood 
that Maimonides is perfectly correct when he 
says : ' In all ages, when a heathen (or a stranger 
by nation) was willing to enter into the covenant of 
Israel, and gather himself under the wings of the 
majesty of God, and take upon himself the yoke of 
the law, he must be first circumcised, and secondly 
baptized, and thirdly bring a sacrifice ; or if the 
party were a woman, then she must be first baptized, 
and secondly bring a sacrifice.' He adds: ' At this 
present time, when (the temple being destroyed) 
there is no sacrificing, a stranger must be first cir- 
cumcised, and secondly baptized.' 

"Dr. Gill, indeed, in his Dissertation on Jewish 
Proselyte Baptism, has ventured the assertion 
that ' there is no mention made of any rite or 



custom of admitting Jewish proselytes by bap- 
tism, in any writings or records before the time 
of John the Baptist, Christ and his apostles ; 
nor in any age after them, for the first three or 
four hundred years ; or, however, before the 
writing of the Talmuds.' But the learned Doctor 
has not condescended to understand the evidence 
of this fact. It does not rest on the testimony 
of Jewish records solely ; it was in circulation 
among the heathen, as we learn from the clear 
and demonstrative testimony of Epictetus, who 
has these words : (he is blaming those who as- 
sume the profession of philosophy without acting 
up to it:) 'Why do you call yourself a Stoic? 
Why do you deceive the multitude ? Why do you 
pretend to be a Greek when you are a Jew ? a 
Syrian ? an Egyptian ? And when we see any 
one wavering, we are wont to say, This is not a 
Jew, but acts one. But when he assumes the 
sentiments of one who hath been baptized and 
circumcised, then he both really is and is called a 
Jew. Thus we, falsifying our profession, are 
Jews in name, but in reality something else.' 

"This practice then of the Jews — proselyte 
baptism — was so notorious to the heathen in Italy 
and in Greece, that it furnished this philosopher 
with an object of comparison. Now, Epictetus 
lived to be very old : he is placed by Dr. Lard- 
ner, A. D. 109, by Le Clerc, A. D. 101. He 
could not be less than sixty years of age when 
he wrote this ; and he might obtain his informa- 
tion thirty or forty years earlier, which brings it 
up to the time of the apostles. Those who could 
think that the Jews could institute proselyte bap- 
tism at the very moment when the Christians 
were practicing baptism as an initiatory rite, are 
not to be envied for the correctness of their 
judgment. The rite certainly dates much earlier, 
probably many ages. I see no reason for dis- 
puting the assertion of Maimonides, notwith- 
standing Dr. Gill's rash and fallacious language 
on the subject." [Facts and Evidences on the Sub- 
ject of Baptism.) 

This baptism of proselytes, as Lightfoot has 
fully shown, was a baptism of families, and com- 
prehended their infant children; and the rite 
was a symbol of their being washed from the 
pollution of idolatry. Very different indeed in 
the extent of its import and office was Christian 
baptism from the Jewish baptisms ; nevertheless, 
this shows that the Jews were familiar with the 
rite as it extonded to children, in cases of con- 
versions from idolatry; and, as far at least as 
the converts from paganism to Christianity were 
concerned, they could not but understand Chris- 
tian baptism to extend to the infant children o( 
Gentile proselytes, unless there had been, what we 
nowhero find in the discourses of Christ and the 



714 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART IT. 



writings of the apostles, an express exception of I 
them. In like manner, their own practice of in- 
fant circumcision must have misled them ; for if ' 
they were taught that baptism was the initiatory | 
seal of the Christian covenant, and had taken ' 
the place of circumcision, which St. Paul had j 
informed them was "a. seal of the righteousness" j 
which is by faith, how should they have under- : 
stood that their children were no longer to be j 
taken into covenant with God, as under their own 
former religion, unless they had been told that 
this exclusion of children from all covenant rela- j 
tion to God, was one of those peculiarities of the 
Christian dispensation in which it differed from 
the religion of the patriarchs and Moses ? This j 
was surely a great change — a change which must 
have made great impression upon a serious and 
affectionate Jewish parent, who could now no ' 
longer covenant with God for his children, or ' 
place his children in a special covenant relation 
to the Lord of the whole earth ; a change indeed j 
so great — a placing of the children of Christian j 
parents in so inferior, and, so to speak, outcast a 
condition in comparison of the children of be- ! 
lieving Jews, while the Abrahamic covenant re- 
mained in force — that not only, in order to pre- 
vent mistake, did it require an express enuncia- , 
tion, but in the nature of the thing it must have 
given rise to so many objections, or at least j 
inquiries, that explanations of the reason of this | 
peculiarity might naturally be expected to occur 
in the writings of the apostles, and especially in 
those of St. Paul. On the contrary, the very 
phraseology of these inspired men, when touch- 
ing the subject of the children of believers only 
incidentally, was calculated to confirm the ancient 
practice, in opposition to what we are told is the 
true doctrine of the gospel upon this point. For 
instance: how could the Jews have understood 
the words of Peter at the pentecost, but as call- 
ing both upon them and their children to be 
baptized? "Bepent and be baptized — for the 
promise is unto you and to your children." For 
that both are included, may be proved, says a 
sensible writer, by considering, 

"1. The resemblance between this promise 
and that in Gen. xvii. 7 :' To be a God unto thee, 
and to thy seed after thee.' The resemblance 
between these two lies in two things : (1.) Each 
stands connected with an ordinance, by which 
persons were to be admitted into Church fellow- 
ship : the one by circumcision, the other by bap- 
tism. (2.) Both agree in phraseology: the one is, 
'unto thee and thy seed;' the other is, 'unto you 
and your children.' Now, every one knows that 
the word seed means children; and that children 
means seed ; and that they are precisely the same. 
From these two strongly resembling features, 



viz., their connection with a similar ordinance, 
and the sameness of the phraseology, I infer 
that the subjects expressed in each are the 
very same. And as it is certain that parents 
and infants were intended by the one, it must 
be equally certain that both are intended by the 
other. 

"2. The sense in which the speakermust have 
understood the sentence in question : < The pro- 
mise is unto you, and to your children.' In order 
to know this, we must consider who the speaker 
was, and from what source he received his reli- 
gious knowledge. The apostle was a Jew. He 
knew that he himself had been admitted in in- 
fancy, and that it was the ordinary practice of 
the Church to admit infants to membership. 
And he likewise knew that in this they acted on 
the authority of that place where God promises 
to Abraham 'to be a God unto him, and to 
his seed.' Now, if the apostle knew all this, in 
what sense could he understand the term chil- 
dren, as distinguished from their parents? I 
have said that reuva, children, and oirep/ua, seed, 
mean the same thing. And as the apostle well 
knew that the term seed intended infants, though 
not mere infants only, and that infants were 
circumcised and received into the Church as be- 
ing the seed, what else could he understand by 
the term children, when mentioned with their pa- 
rents ? Those who will have the apostle to mean, 
by the term children, 'adult posterity' only, have 
this infelicity attending them, that they under- 
stand the term differently from all other men ; 
and they attribute to the apostle a sense of the 
word which to him must have been the most 
forced and infamiliar. 

"3. In what sense his hearers must have un- 
derstood him when he said, ' The promise is unto 
you, and to your children.' 

"The context informs us, that many of St. 
Peter's hearers, as he himself was, were Jews. 
They had been accustomed for many hundred 
years to receive infants by circumcision into the 
Church ; and this they did, as before observed, 
because God had promised to be a God to Abra- 
ham and to his seed. They had understood this 
promise to mean parents and their infant off- 
spring, and this idea was become familiar by the 
practice of many centuries. What then must 
have been their views, when one of their own 
community says to them, ' The promise is unto 
you, and to your children?' If their practice 
of receiving infants was founded on a promise 
exactly similar, as it was, how could they possi- 
bly understand him, but as meaning the same 
thing, since he himself used the same mode of 
speech ? This must have been the case, unless 
we admit this absurdity, that they understood 



CH, III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



715 



/ 



him in a sense to which they had never been ac- 
customed. 

" How idle a thing it is, in a Baptist, to come 
with a lexicon in his hand, to inform us that 
TeKva, children, means posterity ! Certainly it 
does, and so includes the youngest infants. 

"But the Baptists will have it that rmva, 
children, in this place, means only adult posterity. 
And if so, the Jews to whom he spoke, unless 
they understood St. Peter in a way in which it 
was morally impossible they should, would infal- 
libly have understood him wrong. Certainly, all 
men, when acting freely, will understand words 
in that way which is most familiar to them ; and 
nothing could be more so to the Jews, than to 
understand such a speech as Peter's to mean 
adults and infants. 

" We should more certainly come at the truth, 
if, instead of idly criticising, we could fancy 
ourselves Jews, and in the habit of circumcising 
infants, and receiving them into the Church; 
and then could we imagine one of our own na- 
tion and religion to address us in the very lan- 
guage of Peter in this text : 'The promise is unto 
you, and to your children,' let us ask ourselves 
whether we could ever suppose him to mean adult 
posterity only !" (Edwards on Baptism.) 

To this we may add that St. Paul calls the 
children of believers holy, separated to God, and 
standing therefore in a peculiar relation to him ; 
1 Cor. vii. 14: a mode of speech which would 
also have been wholly unintelligible at least to a 
Jew, unless, by some rite of Christianity, children 
were made sharers in its covenanted mercies. 

The practice of the Jews, and the very lan- 
guage of the apostles, so naturally leading there- 
fore to a misunderstanding of this sacrament if 
infant baptism be not a Christian rite, and that 
in respect of its subjects themselves, it was the 
more necessary that some notice of the exclusion 
of infants from the Christian covenant should 
have been given by way of guard. And as we 
find no intimation of this prohibitory kind, we 
may confidently conclude that it was never the 
design of Christ to restrict this ordinance to 
adults only. 

3. Infant children are declared by Christ to 
be members of his Church. 

That they were made members of God's Church 
in the family of Abraham, and among the Jews, 
cannot be denied. They were made so by cir- 
cumcision, which was not that carnal and merely 
political rite which many Baptist writers in con- 
tradiction to the Scriptures make it, but was, as 
we have seen, the seal of a spiritual covenant, 
comprehending engagements to bestow the remis- 
sion of sins and all its consequent blessings in 
this life, and, in another, the heavenly Canaan. 



Among these blessings was that special relation, 
which consisted in becoming a visible and pecu- 
liar people of God, his Church. This was con- 
tained in that engagement of the covenant, "I 
will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a 
people;" a promise which, however connected 
with temporal advantages, was, in its highest and 
most emphatic sense, wholly spiritual. Circum- 
cision was therefore a religious, and not a mere 
political rite, because the covenant, of which it 
was the seal, was in its most ample sense spirit- 
ual. If, therefore, we had no direct authority 
from the words of Christ to declare the infant 
children of believers competent to become the 
members of his Church, the two circumstances — 
that the Church of God, which has always been 
one Church in all ages, and into which the 
Gentiles are now introduced, formerly admitted 
infants to membership by circumcision, and 
that the mode of initiation into it only has been 
changed, and not the subjects, (of which we have 
no intimation,) would themselves prove that bap- 
tism admits into the Christian Church both be- 
lieving parents and their children, as circumci- 
sion admitted both. The same Church remains ; 
for "the olive tree" is not destroyed : the natural 
branches only are broken off", and the Gentiles 
graffed in, and "partake of the root and fatness 
of the olive tree," that is, of all the spiritual 
blessings and privileges heretofore enjoyed by 
the Jews, in consequence of their relation to 
God as his Church. But among these spiritual 
privileges and blessings, was the right of placing 
their children in covenant with God : the mem- 
bership of the Jews comprehended both children 
and adults ; and the graffing in of the Gentiles, 
so as to partake of the same "root and fatness," 
will therefore include a right to put their chil- 
dren also into the covenant, so that they as 
well as adults may become members of Christ's 
Church, have God to be "their God," and be ac- 
knowledged by him, in the special sense of the 
terms of the covenant, to be his "people." 

But we have our Lord's direct testimony to 
this point, and that in two I'emarkable passages. 
Luke ix. 47, 48: "And Jesus took a child and 
set him by him, and he said unto them, Whoso- 
ever shall receive this child in my name, reeeiv- 
eth me ; and whosoever shall reccivo me, receiv- 
eth him that sent me ; for ho that is least among 
you all, the same shall be great." We grant 
that this is an instance of teaching by parabolic 
action. The intention of Christ was to impress 
the necessity of humility and teachableness upon 
his disciples, and to afford a promise, to those 
who should receive them in his namo, of that 
special grace which was implied in receiving him- 
self. Bui then, "were there not a correspondence 



716 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART rv. 



of circumstances between the child taken by 
Jesus in his arms, and the disciples compared to 
this child, there would be no force, no propriety, 
in the action, and the same truth might have 
been as forcibly stated without any action of this 
kind at all. Let then these correspondences be 
remarked in order to estimate the amount of their 
meaning. The humility and docility of the true 
disciple corresponded with the same dispositions 
in a young child ; and the " receiving a disciple in 
the name" of Christ corresponds with the receiv- 
ing of a child in the name of Christ ; which can 
only mean the receiving of each with kindness, 
on account of a religious relation between each 
and Christ, which religious relation can only be 
well interpreted of a Church relation. This is 
further confirmed by the next point of corre- 
spondence, the identity of Christ both with the 
disciple and the child: "Whosoever shall receive 
this child in my name, receiveth me;" but such an 
identity of Christ with his disciples stands wholly 
upon their relation to him as members of his 
mystical "body, the Church." It is in this re- 
spect only that they are "one with him;" and 
there can be no identity of Christ with "little 
children" but by virtue of the same relation, 
that is, as they are members of his mystical body, 
the Church; of which membership, baptism is 
now, as circumcision was then, the initiatory rite. 
That was the relation in which the very child he 
then took up in his arms stood to him by virtue 
of its circumcision : it was a member of his Old 
Testament Church ; but, as he is speaking of the 
disciples as the future teachers of his perfected 
covenant, and their reception in his name under 
that character, he manifestly glances at the 
Church relationship of children to him to be 
established by the baptism to be instituted in his 
perfect dispensation. 

This is, however, expressed still more expli- 
citly in Mark x. 14, 16 : " But when Jesus saw it he 
was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer 
the little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God ; — 
and he took them up in his arms, put his hands 
upon them, and blessed them." Here the chil- 
dren spoken of are "little children," of so ten- 
der an age that our Lord "took them up in his 
arms." The purpose for which they were brought 
was not, as some of the Baptist writers would 
suggest, that Christ should heal them of diseases ; 
for though St. Mark says, "They brought young 
children to Christ that he might touch them," 
this is explained by St. Matthew, who says, 
"that he should put his hands upon them, and 
pray;" and even in the statement of St. Mark, 
x. 16, it is not said that our Lord healed them, 
but "put his hands upon them, and blessed them;" 



which clearly enough shows that this was the 
purpose for which they were brought by their 
parents to Christ. Nor is there any evidence 
that it was the practice among the Jews for 
common, unofficial persons to put their hands 
upon the heads of those for whom they prayed. 
The parents here appear to have been among 
those who believed Christ to be a prophet, " that 
Prophet," or the Messias ; and on that account 
earnestly desired his prayers for their children, 
and his official blessing upon them. That official 
blessing — the blessing which he was authorized 
and empowered to bestow by virtue of his Mes- 
siahship — he was so ready, we might say so 
anxious, to bestow upon them, that he was '■'•much 
displeased" with his disciples who "rebuked them 
that brought them," and gave a command which 
was to be in force in all future time—" Suffer 
the little children to come unto me," in order to 
receive my official blessing; "for of such is the 
kingdom of God." The first evasive criticism of 
the Baptist writers is, that the phrase "of such," 
means of such like, that is, of adults being of a 
childlike disposition — a criticism which takes 
away all meaning from the words of our Lord. 
For what kind of reason was it to offer for per- 
mitting children to come to Christ to receive his 
blessing, that persons not children, but who were 
of a childlike disposition, were the subjects of 
the kingdom of God ? The absurdity of this is 
its own refutation, since the reason for children 
being permitted to come must be found in them- 
selves, and not in others. The second attempt 
to evade the argument from this passage is, to 
understand "the kingdom of God," or "the 
kingdom of heaven," as St. Matthew has it, 
exclusively of the heavenly state. We gladly 
admit, in opposition to the Calvinistic Baptists, 
that all children, dying before actual sin com- 
mitted, are admitted into heaven through the 
merits of Christ ; but for this very reason it fol- 
lows that infants are proper subjects to be intro- 
duced into his Church on earth. The phrases, 
"the kingdom of God," and "the kingdom of 
heaven," are, however, more frequently used by 
our Lord to denote the Church in this present 
world, than in its state of glory ; and since all 
the children brought to Christ to receive his 
blessing were not likely to die in their infancy, 
it could not be affirmed that "of such is the 
kingdom of heaven," if that be understood to 
mean the state of future happiness exclusively. 
As children, they might all be members of the 
Church on earth ; but not all, as children, mem- 
bers of the Church in heaven, seeing they might 
live to become adult, and be cast away. Thus, 
therefore, if children are expressly declared to 
be members of Christ's Church, then are they 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY 



717 



proper subjects of baptism, which is the initia- 
tory rite into every portion of that Church which 
is visible. 

But let this case be more particularly con- 
sidered. 

Take it, that by "the kingdom of God," or 
"of heaven," our Lord means the glorified state 
of his Church, it must be granted that none can 
enter into heaven who are not redeemed by 
Christ, and who do not stand in a vital relation 
to him as members of his mystical body; or 
otherwise we should place human and fallen 
beings in that heavenly state who are uncon- 
nected with Christ as their Redeemer, and un- 
cleansed by him as the sanctifier of his redeemed. 
Now, this relation must exist on earth before it 
can exist in heaven, or else we assign the work 
of sanctifying the fallen nature of man to a 
future state, which is contrary to the Scriptures. 
If infants, therefore, are thus redeemed and 
sanctified in their nature, and are before death 
made "meet for the inheritance of the saints 
in light," so that in this world they are placed 
in the same relation to Christ as an adult believer, 
who derives sanctifying influence from him, they 
are, therefore, the members of his Church : they 
partake the grace of the covenant, and are com- 
prehended in that promise of the covenant, "I 
will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a 
people." In other words, they are made mem- 
bers of Christ's Church, and are entitled to be 
recognized as such by the administration of the 
visible sign of initiation into some visible branch 
of it. If it be asked, "Of what import, then, 
is baptism to children, if as infants they already 
stand in a favorable relation to Christ?" the 
answer is, that it is of the same import as cir- 
cumcision was to Abraham, which was "a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith which he had 
yet being uncircumcised:" it confirmed all the 
promises of the covenant of grace to him, and 
made the Church of God visible to men. It is 
of the same import as baptism to the eunuch, 
who had faith already, and a willingness to sub- 
mit to the rite before it was administered to him. 
He stood at that moment in the condition, not 
of a candidate for introduction into the Church, 
but of an accepted candidate : he was virtually 
a member, although not formally so ; and his 
baptism was not merely a sign of his faith, but 
a confirming sign of God's covenant relation to 
him as a pardoned and accepted man, and gave 
him a security for the continuance and increase 
of the grace of the covenant, as he was pre- 
pared to receive it. In like manner, in the case 
of all truly believing adults applying for baptism, 
their relation to Christ is not that of mere candi- 
dates for membership with his Church, but that of 



accepted candidates, standing already in a vital 
relation to him, but about to receive the seal 
which was to confirm that grace, and its increase 
in the ordinance itself, and in future time. 
Thus this previous relation of infants to Christ, 
as accepted by him, is an argument for their 
baptism, not against it, seeing it is by that they 
are visibly recognized as the formal members of his 
Church, and have the full grace of the covenant 
confirmed and sealed to them, with increase of 
grace as they are fitted to receive it, beside the 
advantage of visible connection with the Church, 
and of that obligation which is taken upon them- 
selves by their parents to train them up in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord. 

In both views, then, "of such is the kingdom 
of God," — members of his Church on earth, and 
of his Church in heaven, if they die in infancy, 
for the one is necessarily involved in the other. 
No one can be of the kingdom of God in heaven 
who does not stand in a vital sanctifying relation 
to Christ as the head of his mystical body, the 
Church, on earth ; and no one can be of the 
kingdom of God on earth, a member of his true 
Church, and die in that relation, without enter- 
ing that state of glory to which his adoption on 
earth makes him an heir through Christ. 

4. The argument from apostolic practice next 
offers itself. That practice was to baptize the 
houses of them that believed. 

The impugners of infant baptism are pleased 
to argue much from the absence of all express 
mention of the baptism of infants in the New 
Testament. This, however, is easily accounted 
for, when it is considered that if, as we have 
proved, baptism took the place of circumcision, 
the baptism of infants was so much a matter of 
course as to call for no remark. The argument- 
from silence on this subject is one which least of 
all the Baptists ought to dwell upon, since, as 
we have seen, if it had been intended to exclude 
children from the privilege of being placed in 
covenant with God, which privilege they un- 
questionably enjoyed under the Old Testament, 
this extraordinary alteration, which could not 
but produce remark, required to be particularly 
noted, both to account for it to the mind of an 
affectionate Jewish parent, and to guard against 
that mistake into which we shall just now show 
Christians from the earliest times fell, since they 
administered baptism to infants. It may further 
bo observed, that, as to the Acts of the Apostles, 
the events narrated there did not require the 
express mention of tho baptism of infants as an 
act separate from the baptism of adults. That 
which called for the administration o{' baptism 
at that period, as now, when the gospel is preached 
in a heathen land, was the believing of adult 



718 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART IV. 



/ 



persons, not the case of persons already believ- 
ing, bringing their children for baptism. On 
the supposition that baptism was administered 
to the children of the parents who thus believed 
at the same time as themselves, and in con- 
sequence of their believing, it may be asked how 
the fact could be more naturally expressed, when 
it was not intended to speak of infant baptism 
doctrinally or distinctly, than that such a one was 
baptized, " and all his house?" just as a similar 
fact would be distinctly recorded by a modern 
missionary writing to a Church at home prac- 
ticing infant baptism, and having no controversy 
on the subject in his eye, by saying that he bap- 
tized such a heathen, at such a place, with all 
his family. For, without going into any criticism 
on the Greek term rendered house, it cannot be 
denied that, like the old English word employed 
in our translation, and also like the word family, 
it must be understood to comprehend either the 
children only, to the exclusion of the domestics, 
or both. 

If we take the instances of the baptism of 
whole "houses," as recorded in the Acts of the 
Apostles, they must be understood as marking 
the common mode of proceeding among the first 
preachers of the gospel when the head or heads 
of a family believed, or as insulated and pecu- 
liar instances. If the former, which, from what 
may be called the matter-of-course manner in 
which the cases are mentioned, is most probable, 
then innumerable instances must have occurred 
of the baptizing of houses or families, just as 
many, in fact, as there were of the conversion 
of heads of families in the apostolic age. That 
the majority of these houses must have included 
infant children is, therefore, certain; and it 
follows that the apostles practiced infant bap- 
tism. 

But let the cases of the baptism of houses 
mentioned in the New Testament be put in 
the most favorable light for the purpose of the 
Baptists — that is, let them be considered as insu- 
lated and peculiar, and not instances of apostolic 
procedure in all cases where the heads of families 
were converted to the faith — still the Baptist is 
obliged to assume that neither in the house of 
the Philippian jailer, nor in that of Lydia, nor 
in that of Stephanas, were there any infants at 
all, since, if there were, they were comprehended 
in the whole houses which were baptized upon 
the believing of their respective heads. This, at 
least, is improbable, and no intimation of this 
peculiarity is given in the history. 

The Baptist writers, however, think that they 
can prove that all the persons included in these 
houses were adults, and that the means of show- 
ing this from the Scriptures is an instance of 



"the care of Providence watching over the 
sacred cause of adult baptism ;" thus absurdly 
assuming that even if this point could be made 
out, the whole controversy is terminated, when, 
in fact, this is but an auxiliary argument of very 
inferior importance to those above mentioned. 
But let us examine their supposed proofs. 
"With respect to the jailer," they tell us that 
"we are expressly assured that the apostles 
spoke the word of the Lord to all that were in his 
house ;" which we grant must principally, although 
not of necessity exclusively, refer to those who 
were of sufficient age to understand their dis- 
course. And "that he rejoiced, believing in 
God with all his house;" from which the infer- 
ence is, that none but adult hearers and adult 
believers were in this case baptized. If so, then 
there could be no infant children in the house, 
which, as the jailer appears from his activity to 
have been a man in the vigor of life, and not 
aged, is at least far from being certain. But if 
it be a proof in this case that there were no 
infant children in the jailer's family, that it is 
said he believed and all his house, this is not the 
only believing family mentioned in Scripture 
from which infants must be excluded. For, to 
say nothing of the houses of Lydia and Stepha- 
nas, the nobleman at Capernaum is said to have 
believed, "and all his house," John iv. 53: so 
that we are to conclude that there were no 
infant children in this house also, although his 
sick son is not said to be his only offspring, and 
that son is called by him a child, the diminutive 
term izaidlov being used. Again, Cornelius is 
said, Acts x. 2, to be " one that feared God, and 
all his house." Infant children, therefore, must 
be excluded from his family also, and also from 
that of Crispus, who is said to have "believed 
on the Lord, with ail his house," which house 
appears, from what immediately follows, to have 
been baptized. These instances make it much 
more probable that the phrases, "fearing God 
with all his house," and "believing with all his 
house," include young children under the believ- 
ing adults, whose religious profession they would 
follow, and whose sentiments they would imbibe, 
so that they might be called a Christian family, 
and that so many houses or families should have 
been constituted only of adult persons, to the 
entire exclusion of children of tender years. In 
the case of the jailer's house, however, the Bap- 
tist argument manifestly halts ; for it is not said 
that they only to whom the word of the Lord 
was spoken were baptized ; nor that they only 
who "believed" and "rejoiced" with the jailer 
were baptized. The account of the baptism is 
given in a separate verse, and in different 
phrase: "And he took them the same hour of 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. III.] 

the night, and washed their stripes, and was 
baptized, he and all his" all belonging to him, 
"straightway ;" where there is no limitation of 
the persons who were baptized to the adults only 
by any terms which designate them as persons 
" hearing" or "believing." 

The next instance is that of Lydia. The words 
of the writer of the Acts are "Who, when she 
was baptized, and her house." The great diffi- 
culty with the Baptists is, to make a house for 
Lydia without any children at all, young or old. 
This, however, cannot be proved from the term 
itself, since the same word is that commonly used 
in the Scripture to include children residing at 
home with their parents : " One that ruleth well 
in his own house, having his children in subjection 
with all gravity." It is however conjectured, 
first, that she had come a trading voyage, from 
Thyatira to Philippi, to sell purple ; as if a wo- 
man of Thyatira might not be settled in business 
at Philippi as a seller of this article. Then, as 
if to mark more strikingly the hopelessness of 
the attempt to torture this passage to favor an 
opinion, "her house" is made to consist of jour- 
neymen dyers, " employed in preparing the pur- 
ple she sold;" which, however, is a notion at 
variance with the former ; for if she was on a 
mere trading voyage, if she had brought her 
purple goods from Thyatira to Philippi to sell, 
she most probably brought them ready dyed, and 
would have no need of a dyeing establishment. 
To complete the whole, these journeymen dyers, 
although not a word is said of their conver- 
sion, nor even of their existence, in the whole 
story, are raised into "the brethren," (a term 
which manifestly denotes the members of the 
Philippian Church,) whom Paul and Silas are 
said to have seen and comforted in the house of 
Lydia, before they departed ! 

All, however, that the history states is, that 
"the Lord opened Lydia's heart, that she at- 
tended unto the things which were spoken of 
Paul," and that she was therefore " baptized and 
her house." From this house no one has the 
least authority to exclude children, even young 
children, since there is nothing in the history to 
warrant the above-mentioned conjectures, and 
the word is in Scripture used expressly to include 
them. All is perfectly gratuitous on the part of 
the Baptists; but, while there is nothing to sanc- 
tion the manner in which they deal with this 
text, there is a circumstance strongly confirma- 
tory of the probability that the house of Lydia, 
according to the natural import of the word ren- 
dered house or family, contained children, and 
that in an infantile state. This is, that in all the 
other instances in which adults are mentioned as 
having been baptized along with tho head of a 



719 



family, they are mentioned as "hearing," and 
" believing," or in some terms which amount to 
this. Cornelius had called together " his kins- 
men and near friends;" and while Peter spake, 
"the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the 
word" "and he commanded them to be baptized." 
So the adults in the house of the jailer at Phil- 
ippi were persons to whom ' ' the word of the 
Lord" was spoken ; and although nothing is said 
of the faith of any but the jailer himself — for 
the words are more properly rendered, "and he, 
believing in God, rejoiced with all his house" — 
yet is the joy which appears to have been felt by 
the adult part of his house, as well as by him- 
self, to be attributed to their faith. Now, as it 
does not appear that the apostles, although they 
baptized infant children, baptized unbelieving 
adult servants because their masters or mistresses 
believed, and yet the house of Lydia were bap- 
tized along with herself, when no mention at all 
is made of the Lord " opening the heart" of these 
adult domestics, nor of their believing, the fair 
inference is, that "the house" of Lydia means 
her children only, and that, being of immature 
years, they were baptized with their mother, ac- 
cording to the common custom of the Jews to 
baptize the children of proselyted Gentiles along 
with their parents, from which practice Chris- 
tian baptism appears to have been taken. 

The third instance is that of "the house of 
Stephanas," mentioned by St. Paul, 1 Cor. i. 16, 
as having been baptized by himself. This family 
also, it is argued, must have been all adults, be- 
cause they are said in the same epistle, chap, 
xvi. 15, to have " addicted themselves to the 
ministry of the saints;" and further, because 
they were persons who took " a lead" in the 
affairs of the Church, the Corinthians being ex- 
horted to " submit themselves unto such, and to 
every one that helpeth with us and laboreth." 
To understand this passage rightly, it is however 
necessary to observe, that Stephanas, the head 
of this family, had been sent by the Church of 
Corinth to St. Paul at Ephesus, along with For- 
tunatus and Achaicus. In the absence of the 
head of tho family, the apostle commends " the 
house," the family of Stephanas, to the regard 
of the Corinthian believers, and perhaps also tho 
houses of the two other brethren who had come 
with him ; for in several MSS. marked by Grieg" 
bach, and in some of the versions, the text reads* 
"Ye know the house of Stephanas and Kortuna- 
tus;"and one reads also, "and of Aehaieus." 
By the house or family of Stephanas, the apos- 
tle must mean his children, or. along with them, 
his near relations dwelling together in the same 
family; for, since they are commended for their 
hospitality to tho saints, servants, who have *t* 



720 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



power to show hospitality, are of course ex- 
cluded. But, in the absence of the head of the 
family, it is very improbable that the apostle 
should exhort the Corinthian Church to -sub- 
mit," ecclesiastically, to the wife, sons, daugh- 
ters, and near relations of Stephanas, and, if the 
reading of Griesbach's \ISS. be followed, to the 
family of Fortunatus, and that of Achaicus also. 
In respect of government, therefore, they can- 
not be supposed "to hare had a lead in the 
Church/'' according to the Baptist notion, and 
especially as the heads of these families were 
absent. They were however the oldest Christian 
families in Corinth, the house of Stephanas at 
least being called "the first-fruits of Achaia," 
and eminently distinguished for "addicting them- 
selves," seiling themselves on system, to the work 
of ministering to the saints, that is, of commu- 
nicating to the poor saints : entertaining stran- 
ger Christians, which was an important branch 
of practical duty in the primitive Church, that 
in every place those who professed Christ might 
be kept out of the society of idolaters : and re- 
ceiving the ministers of Christ. On these ac- 
counts the apostle commends them to the especial 
regard of the Corinthian Church, and exhorts 
" Iva fcai iuele i-ordacrjGde role tolovtoic, that you 
range yourselves under and cooperate with them, 
and with every one/' also, "who helpeth with 
us, and laboreth:" the military metaphor con- 
tained in erazav in the preceding verse being 
here carried forward. These families were the 
oldest Christians in Corinth ; and as they were 
foremost in every good word and work, they were 
not only to be commended, but the rest were to 
be exhorted to serve under them as leaders in 
these works of charity. This appears to be the 
obvious sense of this otherwise obscure passage. 
But in this, or indeed in any other sense which 
can be given to it, it proves no more than that 
there were adult persons in the family of Stepha- 
nas, his wife, and sons, and daughters, who were 
distinguished for their charity and hospitality. 
Still it is to be remembered that the baptism of 
the oldest of the children took place several 
years before. The house of Stephanas "was the 
first-fruits of Achaia," in which St. Paul began 
to preach not later than A.D. 51, while this epis- 
tle could not be written earlier at least than 
A.D. 57, and might be later. Six or eight years 
taken from the age of the sons and daughters of 
Stephanas, might bring the oldest to the state of 
youth, and, as to the younger branches, 
would descend to the term of infancy, properly 
so called. Still further, all that the apostle af- 
firms of the benevolence and hospitality of the 
family of Stephanas is perfectly consistent with 
a part of his children being still ay young when 



[PART IV. 



he wrote the epistle. An equal commendation 
for hospitality and charity might be given in the 
present day, with perfect propriety, to many 
pious families, several members of which are 
still in a state of infancy. It was sufficient to 
warrant the use of such expressions as those of 
the apostle, that there were in these Corinthian 
families a few adults, whose conduct gave a de- 
cided character to the whole " house." Thus 
the arguments used to prove that in these three 
instances of family baptism there were no young 
children, are evidently very unsatisfactory ; and 
they leave us to the conclusion, which perhaps 
all would come to in reading the sacred hi; 
were they quite free from the bias of a theoiy, 
that "houses," or "families." as in the com- 
monly received import of the term, must be un- 
derstood to comprise children of all ages, unless 
some explicit note of the contrary appears, which 
is not the case in any of the instances in ques- 
tion. 

5. The last argument may be drawn from 
the antiquity of the practice of infant baptism. 

If the baptism of the infant children of be- 
lievers was not practiced by the apostles and by 
the primitive Churches, when and where did the 
practice commence ? To this question the Bap- 
tist writers can give no answer. It is an inno- 
vation, according to them, not upon the circum- 
stances of a sacrament, but upon its essential prin- 
ciple; and yet its introduction produced no 
struggle ; was never noticed by any general or 
provincial council : and excited no controversy ! 
This itself is strong presumptive proof of its 
early antiquity. On the other hand, we can point 
out the only ancient writer who opposed infant 
baptism. This was Tertullian, who lived late in 
the second century ; but his very opposition to 
the practice proves that that practice was more 
ancient than himself : and the principles on which 
he impugns it, further show that it was so. He 
regarded this sacrament superstitiously : he ap- 
pended to it the trine immersion in the name of 
each of the persons of the trinity : he gives it 
gravely as a reason why infants should not be 
baptized, that Christ says, "Suffer the little 
children to come unto me ;" therefore they must 
stay till they are able to come, that is, till they 
are grown up ; " and he would prohibit the un- 
married, and all in a widowed state, from bap- 
tism, because of the temptations to which they 
may be liable." The whole of this is solv r 
adverting to that notion of the efficacy of this 
sacrament in taking away all previous sins, which 
then began to prevail, so that an inducement ^vas 
held out for delaying baptism as long as possible, 
till at length, in many cases, it was postponed to 
the article of death, under the belief that the 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



'21 



dying who received this sacrament were the more 
secure of salvation. Tertullian, accordingly, 
with all his zeal, allowed that infants ought to be 
baptized if their lives be in danger, and thus evi- 
dently shows that his opposition to the baptism 
of infants in ordinary, rested upon a very differ- 
ent principle from that of the modern Antipedo- 
baptists. Amidst all his arguments against this 
practice, Tertullian, however, never ventures 
upon one which would have been most to his pur- 
pose, and which might most forcibly have been 
urged had not baptism been administered to in- 
fants by the apostles and their immediate succes- 
sors. The argument would have been the novelty 
of the practice, which he never asserts, and 
which, as he lived so early, he might have proved, 
had he had any ground for it. On the contrary, 
Justin Martyr and Irenseus, in the second cen- 
tury, and Origen, in the beginning of the third, 
expressly mention infant baptism as the practice 
of their times, and, by the latter, this is assigned 
to apostolic injunction. Fidus, an African bishop, 
applied to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to know, 
not whether infants were to be baptized, but 
whether their baptism might take place before 
the eighth day after their birth, that being the 
day on which circumcision was performed by the 
law of Moses. This question was considered in 
an African synod, held A.D. 254, at which sixty- 
six bishops were present, and " it was unani- 
mously decreed, « that it was not necessary to 
defer baptism to that day ; and that the grace of 
God, or baptism, should be given to all, and es- 
pecially to infants.' " This decision was com- 
municated in a letter from Cyprian to Fidus. 
{Cyp. Ep. 59.) We trace the practice also down- 
ward. In the fourth century, Ambrose says 
that " infants who are baptized, are reformed 
from wickedness to the primitive state of their 
nature;" [Comment, in Lucam, c. 10;) and at the 
end of that century, the famous controversy 
took place between Augustin and Pelagius con- 
cerning original sin, in which the uniform prac- 
tice of baptizing infants from the days of the 
apostles was admitted by both parties, although 
they assigned different reasons for it. So little 
indeed were Tertullian's absurdities regarded, 
that he appears to have been quite forgotten by 
this time ; for Augustin says he never heard of 
any Christian, catholic or sectary, who taught 
any other doctrine than that infants are to be 
baptized. (Be Pecc. Mor. cap. 6.) Infant bap- 
tism is not mentioned in the canons of any coun- 
cil; nor is it insisted upon as an object of faith 
in any creed ; and thence we infer that it was a 
point not controverted at any period of tho an- 
cient Church, and we know that it was the prac- 
tice in all established Churches. Wall says that 
4G 



Peter Bruis, a Frenchman who lived about the 
year 1030, whose followers were called Petro- 
brussians, was the first Antipedobaptist teacher 
who had a regular congregation. (Hist., part 2, 
c. 7.) The Anabaptists of Germany took their 
rise in the beginning of the fifteenth century ; 
but it does not appear that there was any con- 
gregation of Anabaptists in England till the 
year 1640. (Bishop Tomline's Elements.) That 
a practice which can be traced up to the very 
first periods of the Church, and has been, till 
within very modern times, its uncontradicted 
practice, should have a lower authority than 
apostolic usage and appointment, may be pro- 
nounced impossible. It is not like one of those 
trifling, though somewhat superstitious, addi- 
tions, which even in very early times began to be 
made to the sacraments ; on the contrary, it in- 
volves a principle so important as to alter the 
very nature of the sacrament itself. For if per- 
sonal faith be an essential requisite of baptism 
in all cases ; if baptism be a visible declaration 
of this, and is vicious without it ; then infant 
baptism was an innovation of so serious a na- 
ture, that it must have attracted attention, and 
provoked controversy, which would have led, if 
not to the suppression of the error, yet to a di- 
versity of practice in the ancient Churches, 
which in point of fact did not exist, Tertullian 
himself allowing infant baptism in extreme cases. 

The benefits of this sacrament require to be 
briefly exhibited. Baptism introduces the adult 
believer into the covenant of grace, and the 
Church of Christ ; and is the seal, the pledge, to 
him on the part of God, of the fulfilment of all 
its provisions, in time and in eternity ; while, on 
his part, he takes upon himself the obligations 
of steadfast faith and obedience. 

To the infant child, it is a visible reception into 
the same covenant and Church — a pledge of ac- 
ceptance through Christ — the bestowment of a 
title to all the grace of the covenant as circum- 
stances may require, and as the mind of the child 
may be capable, or made capable, of receiving 
it ; and as it may be sought in future life by 
prayer, when the period of reason and moral 
choice shall arrive. It conveys also the present 
" blessing" of Christ, of which we are assured 
by his taking children in his arms, and blessing 
them ; which blessing cannot be merely nominal, 
but must be substantial and efficacious. It se- 
cures, too, the gift of the Holy Spirit, iu those 
secret spiritual influences, by which the actual 
regeneration of those children who die in infancy 
is effected ; and which are a m'cd of ///'<' in those 
who are spared, to prepare them for instruction 
in the word of God, as they are taught it by pa- 
rental care, to incline their will and affections to 



722 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



> 



good, and to begin and maintain in them the war 
against inward and outward evil, so that they 
may be Divinely assisted, as reason strengthens, 
to make their calling and election sure. In a 
word, it is, both as to infants and to adults, the 
sign and pledge of that inward grace, which, 
although modified in its operations by the differ- 
ence of their circumstances, has respect to, and 
flows from, a covenant relation to each of the 
three persons in whose one name they are bap- 
tized, — acceptance by the Father, — union with 
Christ as the head of his mystical body, the 
Church, — and "the communion of the Holy 
Ghost." To these advantages must be added 
the respect which God bears to the believing act 
of the parents, and to their solemn prayers on 
the occasion, in both which the child is inter- 
ested ; as well as in that solemn engagement of 
the parents, which the rite necessarily implies, 
to bring up their child in the nurture and admo- 
nition of the Lord. 

To the parents it is a benefit also. It assures 
them that God will not only be their God, but 
"the God of their seed after them:" it thus 
gives them, as the Israelites of old, the right to 
covenant with God for their "little ones," and 
it is a consoling pledge that their dying, infant 
offspring shall be saved ; since he who says, 
"Suffer little children to come unto me," has 
added, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
They are reminded by it also of the necessity of 
acquainting themselves with God's covenant, that 
they may diligently teach it to their children ; 
and that as they have covenanted with God for 
their children, they are bound thereby to enforce 
the covenant conditions upon them as they come 
to years, by example, as well as by education ; by 
prayer, as well as by profession of the name of 
Christ. 

III. The mode of baptism remains to be con- 
sidered. 

Although the manner in which the element of 
water is applied in baptism is but a circumstance 
of this sacrament, it will not be a matter of sur- 
prise, to those who reflect upon the proneness of 
men to attach undue importance to comparative 
trifles, that it has produced so much controversy. 
The question as to the proper subjects of baptism 
is one which is to be respected for its import- 
ance ; that as to the mode has occupied more 
time, and excited greater feeling, than it is in 
any view entitled to. It cannot, however, be 
passed over, because the advocates for immersion 
are often very troublesome to their fellow-Chris- 
tians, unsettle weak minds, and sometimes, per- 
haps, from their zeal for a form, endanger their 
own spirituality. Against the doctrine that the 
only legitimate mode of baptizing is by immer- 



[PART IV. 

sion, we may first observe that there are several 
strong presumptions. 

1. It is not probable that, if immersion were 
the only allowable mode of baptism, it should 
not have been expressly enjoined. 

2. It is not probable that, in a religion de- 
signed to be universal, a mode of administering 
this ordinance should be obligatory, the practice 
of which is ill adapted to so many climates, 
where it would either be exceedingly harsh to 
immerse the candidates, male and female, strong 
and feeble, in water ; or, in some places, as in 
the higher latitudes, for a greater part of the 
year, impossible. Even if immersion were in 
fact the original mode of baptizing in the name 
of Christ, these reasons make it improbable that 
no accommodation of the form should take place, 
without vitiating the ordinance. This some of 
the stricter Baptists assert, although they them- 
selves depart from the primitive mode of par- 
taking of the Lord's Supper, in accommodation 
to the customs of their country. 

3. It is still more unlikely that in a religion 
of mercy there should be no consideration of 
health and life in the administration of an ordi- 
nance of salvation, since it is certain that in 
countries where cold bathing is little practiced, 
great risk of both is often incurred, especially in 
the case of women and delicate persons of either 
sex, and fatal effects do sometimes occur. 

4. It is also exceedingly improbable that in 
such circumstances of climate, and the unfre- 
quent use of the bath, a mode of baptizing should 
have been appointed, which, from the shivering, 
the sobbing, and other bodily uneasiness pro- 
duced, should distract the thoughts, and unfit 
the mind for a collected performance of a reli- 
gious and solemn act of devotion. 

5. It is highly improbable that the three thou- 
sand converts at the pentecost, who, let it be 
observed, were baptized on the same day, were 
all baptized by immersion ; or that the jailer and 
"all his" were baptized in the same manner in 
the night, although the Baptists have invented 
"a tank or bath in the prison at Philippi" for 
that purpose. 

Finally, it is most of all improbable that a 
religion like the Christian, so scrupulously deli- 
cate, should have enjoined the immersion of wo- 
men by men, and in the presence of men. In 
an after age, when immersion came into fashion, 
baptisteries, and rooms for women, and changes 
of garments, and other auxiliaries to this prac- 
tice, came into use, because they were found ne- 
cessary to decency; but there could be no such 
conveniences in the first instance ; and accord- 
ingly we read of none. With all the arrange- 
ments of modern times, baptism by immersion is 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



723 



not a decent practice : there is not a female, per- 
haps, who submits to it, who has not a great 
previous struggle with her delicacy ; but that, 
at a time when no such accommodations could 
be had as have since been found necessary, such 
a ceremony should have been constantly perform- 
ing wherever the apostles and first preachers 
went, and that at pools and rivers in the presence 
of many spectators, and they sometimes unbe- 
lievers and scoffers, is a thing not rationally cre- 
dible. 

We grant that the practice of immersion is 
ancient, and so are many other superstitious ap- 
pendages to baptism, which were adopted under 
the notion of making the rite more emblematical 
and impressive. We not only trace immersion 
to the second century, but immersion three 
times, anointing with oil, signing with the sign 
of the cross, imposition of hands, exorcism, 
eating milk and honey, putting on white gar- 
ments, all connected with baptism, and first men- 
tioned by Tertullian ; the invention of men like 
himself, who with much genius and eloquence 
had little judgment, and were superstitious to a 
degree worthy of the darkest ages which fol- 
lowed. It was this authority for immersion 
which led Wall, and other writers on the side 
of infant baptism, to surrender the point to the 
Antipedobaptists, and to conclude that immer- 
sion was the apostolic practice. Several national 
Churches, too, like our own, swayed by the 
same authority, are favorable to immersion, 
although they do not think it binding, and 
generally practice effusion or sprinkling. 

Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian was, however, 
so strenuous for immersion as to deny the validity 
of baptism by aspersion or effusion. In cases 
of sickness or weakness they only sprinkled 
water upon the face, which we suppose no mo- 
dern Baptist would allow. Clinic baptism, too, 
or the baptism of the sick in bed, by aspersion, 
is allowed by Cyprian to be valid; so that "if 
the persons recover they need not be baptized by 
immersion." (Epist. 69.) Gennadius of Mar- 
seilles, in the fifth century, says that baptism 
was administered in the Gallic Church, in his 
time, indifferently by immersion or by sprink- 
ling. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aqui- 
nas says, "that baptism may be given, not only 
by immersion, but also by effusion of water, or 
sprinkling with it." And Erasmus affirms, (Epist. 
96,) that in his time it was the custom to sprinkle 
infants in Holland, and to dip them in England. 
Of these two modes, one only was primitive and 
apostolic. Which that was we shall just now 
consider. At present it is only necessary to ob- 
serve, that immersion is not the only mode which 
can plead antiquity in its favor ; and that, as the 



j superstition of antiquity appears to have gone 
| most in favor of baptism by immersion, this is a 
! circumstance which affords a strong presump- 
tion that it was one of those additions to the 
ancient rite which superstition originated. This 
may be made out almost to a moral certainty, 
without referring at all to the argument from 
Scripture. The "ancient Christians," the "prim- 
itive Christians," as they are called by the advo- 
cates of immersion, that is, Christians of about 
the age of Tertullian and Cyprian, and a little 
downward — whose practice of immersion is used 
as an argument to prove that mode only to have 
had apostolic sanction — baptized the candidates 
naked. Thus Wall, in his Histoiy of Baptism : 
1 " The ancient Christians, when they were bap- 
tized by immersion, were all baptized naked, 
whether they were men, women, or children. 
They thought it better represented the putting 
I off of the old man, and also the nakedness of 
; Christ on the cross; moreover, as baptism is a 
washing, they judged it should be the washing 
of the body, not of the clothes." This is an in- 
| stance of the manner in which they affected to 
improve the emblematical character of the ordi- 
| nance. Robinson also, in his History of Baptism, 
! states the same thing: "Let it be observed that 
the primitive Christians baptized naked. There 
| is no ancient historical fact better authenticated 
than this." " They, however," says Wall, " took 
great care for preserving the modesty of any 
woman who was to be baptized. None but wo- 
men came near till her body was in the water ; 
then the priest came, and putting her head also 
under the water, he departed and left her to the 
women." Now, if antiquity be pleaded as a proof 
that immersion was the really primitive mode of 
baptizing, it must be pleaded in favor of the 
gross and offensive circumstance of baptizing 
naked, which was considered of as much import- 
ance as the other ; and then we may safely leave 
it for any one to say whether he really believes 
that the three thousand persons mentioned in the 
Acts of the Apostles were baptized naked? and 
whether, when St. Paul baptized Lydia, she was 
put into the water naked by her women, and 
that the apostle then hastened " to put her head 
underwater also, using the form of baptism, and 
retired, leaving her to the women" to take her 
away to dress ? Immersion, with all its append- 
ages, dipping three times, nakedness, unction, 
the eating of milk and honey, exorcism, etc., 
bears manifest mai-ks of that disposition to im- 
prove upon God's ordinances, for which even the 
close of the second century was remarkable, and 
which laid the foundation of that general cor- 
ruption which so speedily followed. 

But wo proceed to the New Testament itself. 



724 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[PART IV. 



and deny that a single clear case of baptism by 
immersion can be produced from it. 

The word itself, as it has been often shown, 
proves nothing. The verb, with its derivatives, 
signifies to dip the hand into a dish, Matt. xxvi. 
23 ; to stain a vesture with blood, Rev. xix. 13 ; 
to wet the body with dew, Dan. iv. 33 ; to paint 
or smear the face with colors ; to stain the hand 
by pressing a substance ; to be overwhelmed in 
the waters as a sunken ship ; to be drowned by 
falling into water ; to sink, in the neuter sense ; 
to immerse totally ; to plunge up to the neck ; to 
be immersed up to the middle ; to be drunken 
with wine ; to be dyed, tinged, and imbued ; to 
wash by effusion of water ; to pour water upon 
the hands, or any other part of the body ; to 
sprinkle. A word, then, of such large applica- 
tion affords as good proof for sprinkling, or par- 
tial dipping, or washing with water, as for im- 
mersion in it. The controversy on this accommo- 
dating word has been carried on to weariness ; 
and if even the advocates of immersion could 
prove, what they have not been able to do, that 
plunging is the primary meaning of the term, 
they would gain nothing, since in Scripture it is 
notoriously used to express other applications of 
water. The Jews had " divers baptisms" in 
their service ; but these washings of the body in 
or with water were not immersions, and in some 
instances they were mere sprinklings. The Pha- 
risees "baptized before they ate," but this bap- 
tism was "the washing of hands," which in 
eastern countries is done by servants pouring 
water over them, and not by dipping: "Here is 
Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who poured water on 
the hands of Elijah," 2 Kings iii. 11 ; that is, who 
acted as his servant. In the same manner the 
feet were washed: "Thou gavest me no water 
upon, era, my feet." Luke vii. 44. Again, the 
Pharisees are said to have held the "washing" or 
baptism "of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of 
tables ;" not certainly for the sake of cleanliness, 
(for all people hold the washing or baptism of 
such utensils for this purpose,) but from super- 
stitious notions of purification. Now, as < ' sprink- 
ling" is prescribed in the law of Moses, and was 
familiar to the Jews, as the mode of purification 
from uncleanness, as in the case of the sprinkling 
of the water of separation, Num. xix. 19, it is 
for this reason much more probable that the bap- 
tism of these vessels was effected by sprinkling, 
than by either pouring or immersion. But that 
they were not immersed, at least not the whole 
of them, may be easily made to appear ; and if 
"baptism" as to any of these utensils does not 
signify immersion, the argument from the use of 
the word must be abandoned. Suppose, then, 
the pets, cups, and brazen vessels to have been 



baptized by immersion; the "beds" or couches 
used to recline upon at their meals, which they 
ate in an accumbent posture — couches which were 
constructed for three or five persons each to lie 
down upon — must certainly have been exempted 
from the operation of a "baptism" by dipping, 
which was probably practiced, like the "baptism" 
of their hands, before every meal. The word is 
also used by the LXX. in Dan. iv. 30, [33,] where 
Nebuchadnezzar is said to have been wet with 
the dew of heaven, which was plainly effected, 
not by his immersion in dew, but by its descent 
upon him. Finally, it occurs in 1 Cor. x. 2 : 
"And were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
in the sea;" where also immersion is out of the 
case. The Israelites were not immersed in the 
sea, for they went through it, as "on dry land;" 
and they were not immersed in the cloud, which 
was above them. In this case, if the spray of 
the sea is referred to, or the descent of rain from 
the cloud, they were baptized by sprinkling, or 
at most by pouring ; and that there is an allu- 
sion to the latter circumstance, is made almost 
certain by a passage in the song of Deborah, and 
other expressions in the Psalms, which speak of 
"rain," and the "pouring out of water," and 
"droppings" from the "cloud" which directed 
the march of the Jews in the wilderness. What- 
ever, therefore, the primary meaning of the verb 
"to baptize" may be, is a question of no import- 
ance on one side or the other. Leaving the 
mode of administering baptism, as a religious rite, 
out of the question, it is used generally, at 
least in the New Testament, not to express im- 
mersion in water, but for the act of pouring or 
sprinkling it ; and that baptism, when spoken of 
as a religious rite, is to be understood as admin- 
istered by immersion, no satisfactory instance 
can be adduced. 

The baptism of John is the first instance usu- 
ally adduced in proof of this practice : the mul- 
titudes who went out to him were "baptized of 
him in Jordan ;" they were therefore immersed. 

To say nothing here of the laborious, and ap- 
parently impossible task imposed upon John, of 
plunging the multitudes, who flocked to him day 
by day, into the river ; and the indecency of the 
whole proceeding when women were also con- 
cerned ; it is plain that the principal object of 
the evangelist, in making this statement, was to 
point out the place where John exercised his 
ministry and baptized, and not to describe the 
mode ; if the latter is at all referred to, it must 
be acknowledged that this was incidental to the 
other design. Now it so happens that we have 
a passage which relates to John's baptism, and 
which can only be fairly interpreted by referring 
to his mode of BArTiziNG, as the first consi- 



OH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



riD 



deration ; a passage, too, which John himself ut- 
tered at the very time he was baptizing " in Jor- 
dan." "I indeed baptize you with water unto 
repentance ; but he that cometh after me is 
mightier than I : he shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost and with fire." Our translators, in 
this passage, aware of the absurdity of transla- 
ting the preposition kv, in, have properly ren- 
dered it with; but the advocates of immersion 
do not stumble at trifles, and boldly rush into 
the absurdity of Campbell's translation: "I in- 
deed baptize you in water: he will baptize you in 
the Holy Ghost and fire." Unfortunately for 
this translation, we have not only the utter 
senselessness of the phrases baptized, plunged in 
the Holy Ghost, and plunged in fire, to set against 
it ; but also the very history of the completion 
of this prophetic declaration, and that not only 
as to the fact that Christ did indeed baptize his 
disciples with the Holy Ghost and with fire, but 
also as to the mode in which this baptism was 
effected : "And there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of 
them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost." Thus the baptism of the Holy Ghost 
and of fire was a descent upon, and not an im- 
mersion into. With this, too, agree all the ac- 
counts of the baptism of the Holy Spirit: they 
are all from above, like the pouring out or shedding 
of water upon the head ; nor is there any ex- 
pression in Scripture which bears the most re- 
mote resemblance to immersing, plunging in the 
Holy Ghost. When our Lord received the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost, "the Spirit of God 
descended like a dove, and lighted upon him." 
When Cornelius and his family received the same 
gift, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word ;" "and they of the circumcision 
that believed were astonished, because that on 
the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the 
Holy Ghost," which, as the words imply, had 
been in like manner " poured out on them." The 
common phrase, to " receive" the Holy Ghost, is 
also inconsistent with the idea of being immersed, 
plunged into the Holy Ghost ; and finally, when 
St. Paul connects the baptism with water and 
the baptism with the Holy Ghost together, as in 
the words of John the Baptist just quoted, he 
expresses the mode of baptism of the Spirit in 
the same manner : "According to his mercy he 
saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which he shed 
on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Sa- 
viour." Titus iii. 5, 6. That the mode, therefore, 
in which John baptized was by pouring water upon 
his disciples, may be concluded from his using the 
same word to express the pouring out, the descent, 
of the Spirit upon the disciples of Jesus. For 



if baptism necessarily means immersion, and 
John baptized by immersion, then did not Jesus 
baptize his disciples with the Holy Ghost. He 
might bestow it upon them, but he did not baptize 
them with it, according to the Immersionists, 
since he only "poured it upon them," "shed it 
upon them," caused it "to fall upon them;" 
none of which, according to them, is baptism. 
It follows, therefore, that the prediction of John 
was never fulfilled, because, in their sense of 
baptizing, none of the disciples of Jesus men- 
tioned in the Acts of the Apostles ever received 
the Holy Ghost but by effusion. This is the 
dilemma into which they put themselves. They 
must allow that baptism is not in this passage 
used for immersion ; or they must deny that 
Jesus ever did baptize with the Holy Ghost. 

To baptize "in Jordan," does not, then, signify 
to plunge in the river of Jordan. John made 
the neighborhood of Jordan the principal place 
of his ministry. Either at the fountains of some 
favored district, or at some river, baptize he 
must, because of the multitudes who came to 
his baptism, in a country deficient in springs, 
and of water in general ; but there are several 
ways of understanding the phrase "in Jordan," 
which give a sufficiently good sense, and involve 
no contradiction to the words of John himself, 
who makes his baptism an effusion of water, to 
answer to the effusion of the Holy Spirit, as 
administered by Jesus. It may be taken as a note 
of place, not of mode. "In Jordan," therefore, 
the expression of St. Matthew, is, in St. John, 
"in Bethabara, beyond," or situate on "Jordan, 
where John was baptizing;" and this seems all 
that the expression was intended to mark, and 
is the sense to be preferred. It is equivalent to 
" at Jordan," " at Bethabara, situate on Jordan," 
at being a frequent sense of kv, Or it may 
signify that the water of Jordan was made use 
of by John for baptizing, however it might be 
applied ; for we should think it no violent mode 
of expression to say that we washed ourselves 
in a river, although we should mean, not that we 
plunged ourselves into it, but merely that we 
took up the water in our hands, and applied it 
in the way of effusion. Or it may be taken to 
express his baptizing in the bed of the river, into 
which he must have descended with the baptized, 
in order to take up the water with his hand, or 
with some small vessel, as represented in anoient 
bas-reliefs, to pour it out upon them. This 
would be the position of any bapti/.er using a 
river at all accessible by a shelving bank ; and 
when within the bod of the stream, lie might as 
truly be said to be in the river, when mere phicc 
was the principal thing to be pointed out. as if 
he had been immersed in the water. The Jordan 



726 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



[part IV. 



in this respect is rather remarkable, having, 
according to Maundrell, an outermost bank formed 
by its occasional "swellings." The remark of 
this traveller is: "After having descended the 
outermost bank, you go a furlong upon a level 
strand before you come to the immediate bank 
of the river." Any of these views of the import 
of the phrases, "in Jordan," "in the river of 
Jordan," used plainly with intention to point out 
the place where John exercised his ministry, will 
sufficiently explain them, without involving us 
in the inextricable difficulties which embarrass 
the theory that John baptized only by immersion. 
To go, indeed, to a river to baptize, would, in such 
countries as our own, where water for the mere 
purpose of effusion may readily be obtained out 
of cisterns, pumps, etc., very naturally suggest 
to the simple reader that the reason for John's 
choice of a river was that it afforded the means 
of immersion. But in those countries the case 
was different. Springs, as we have said, were 
scarce, and the water for domestic purposes had 
to be fetched daily by the women in pitchers 
from the nearest rivers and fountains, which 
rendered the domestic supply scanty, and of 
course valuable. But even if this reason did 
not exist, baptism in rivers would not, as a 
matter of course, imply immersion. Of this we 
have an instance in the customs of the people of 
Mesopotamia, mentioned in the Journal of Wolfe, 
the missionary. This sect of Christians call 
themselves "the followers of St. John the Bap- 
tist, who was a follower of Christ." Among 
many other questions, Mr. Wolfe inquired of 
one of them respecting their mode of baptism, 
and was answered, " The priests or bishop bap- 
tize children thirty days old. They take the 
child to the banks of the river: a relative or 
friend holds the child near the surface of the 
water, while the priest sprinkles the element upon 
the child, and with prayers they name the child." 
[Journal, vol. ii., p. 311.) Mr. Wolfe asks, 
"Why do they baptize in rivers?" Answer: 
"Because St. John the Baptist baptized in the 
river Jordan." The same account was given 
afterward by one of their bishops, or high 
priests : " They carry the children, after thirty 
days, to the river, the priest says a prayer, the 
godfather takes the child to the river, while the 
priest sprinkles it with water." Thus we have in 
modern times river baptism without immersion ; 
and among the Syrian Christians, though im- 
mersion is used, it does not take place till after the 
true baptismal rite, pouring water upon the child 
in the name of the trinity, has been performed. 

The second proof adduced by the Immersion- 
ists is taken from the baptism of our Lord, who 
is said, Matt. iii. 16, "to have gone up straight- 



way out of the water." Here, however, the pre- 
position used signifies from; and dvepn d-rrb tov 
vdarog, is simply, "he went up from the water." 
We grant that this might have been properly 
said in whatever way the baptism had been pre- 
viously performed; but then it certainly in itself 
affords no argument on which to build the notion 
of the immersion of our Saviour. 

The great passage of the Immersionists, how- 
ever, is Acts viii. 38, 39 : "And they went down 
both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, 
and he baptized him ; and when they were come 
up out of the water," etc. This is relied upon 
as a decisive proof of the immersion and emersion 
of the eunuch. If so, however, it proves too 
much ; for nothing is said of the eunuch which 
is not said of Philip: " They went down both 
into the water," "And when they were come up 
out of the water;" and so Philip must have im- 
mersed himself as well as the eunuch. Nor 
will the prepositions determine the case: they 
would have been employed properly had Philip 
and the eunuch gone into the water by partial or 
by entire immersion, and, therefore, come out of 
it on dry land ; and with equal propriety, and 
according to the habitual use of the same pre- 
positions by Greek writers, they would express 
going to the water, without going into it, and 
returning from it, and not out of it, for elg is 
spoken of place, and properly signifies at, or it 
indicates motion toward a certain limit ; and, for 
any thing that appears to the contrary in the 
history of the eunuch's baptism, that limit may 
just as well be placed at the nearest verge of the 
water as in the middle of it. Thus the LXX. 
say, Isa. xxxvi. 2, " The king sent Rabshakeh 
from Lachish, elg, to Jerusalem;" certainly not 
into it, for the city was not captured. The sons 
of the prophets "came, elg, to Jordan to cut 
wood." 2 Kings vi. 4. They did not, we sup- 
pose, go into the water to perform that work. 
Peter was bid to "go, elg, to the sea, and cast 
a hook," not surely to go into the sea ; and our 
Lord, Matt. v. 1, "went up, elg, to a mountain," 
but not into it. The corresponding preposition 
en, which signifies, when used of place, from, out 
of, must be measured by the meaning of elg. 
When elg means into, then e/c means out of; but 
when it means simply to, then e/c can express no 
more than from. Thus this passage is nothing 
to the purpose of the Immersionists. 

The next proof relied upon in favor of im- 
mersion is John iii. 22, 23: "After these things 
came Jesus and his disciples into the land of 
Judea, and there he tarried with them, and bap- 
tized; and John also was baptizing in iEnon, 
near to Salim, because there was much water 
there, and they came and were baptized." The 



CH. III.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



727 



Immersionists can see no reason for either Jesus 
or John baptizing where there was much water, 
but that they plunged their converts. The true 
reason for this has, however, been already given. 
Where could the multitudes who came for bap- 
tism be assembled ? Clearly, not in houses. 
The preaching was in the fields ; and since the 
rite which was to follow a ministry which made 
such an impression, and drew together such 
crowds, was baptism, the necessity of the case 
must lead the Baptist to Jordan, or to some other 
district, where, if a river was wanting, fountains 
at least existed. The necessity was equal in 
this case, whether the mode of baptism were 
that of aspersion, or pouring, or of immersion. 

The Baptists, however, have magnified iEnon, 
which signifies the fountain of On, into a place 
of "many and great waters." Unfortunately, 
however, no such powerful fountain, sending out 
many streams of water fit for plunging multi- 
tudes into, has ever been found by travellers, 
although the country has been often visited; 
and certainly if its streams had been of the 
copious and remarkable character assigned to 
them, they could not have vanished. It rather 
appears, however, that the "much water," or 
"many waters," in the text, refers rather to the 
whole tract of country than to the fountain of 
On itself, because it appears to be given by the 
evangelist as the reason why Jesus and his dis- 
ciples came into the same neighborhood to bap- 
tize. Different baptisms were administered, and, 
therefore, in different places. The baptism ad- 
ministered by Jesus at this time was one of 
multitudes : this appears from the remark of 
one of John's disciples to his Master: "He that 
was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou 
barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and 
all men come to him." The place or places, too, 
where Jesus baptized, although in the same dis- 
trict, could not be very near, since John's dis- 
ciple mentions the multitudes who came to be 
baptized by Jesus, or rather by his disciples, as 
a piece of information ; and thus we find a rea- 
son for the mention of the much water, or many 
waters, with reference to the district of country 
itself, and not to the single fountain of On. The 
tract had probably many fountains in it, which, 
as being a peculiarity in a country not generally 
so distinguished, would lead to the use of the 
expression "much water," although not one of 
these fountains or wells might be sufficient to 
allow of the plunging of numbers of people, and 
probably was not. Indeed, if the disciples of 
Jesus baptized by immersion, the Immersionists 
are much more concerned to discover "much 
water," "many waters," "large and deep 
streams," somewhere else in the district than at 



iEnon, because it is plain from the narrative 
that the number of candidates for John's bap- 
tism had greatly fallen off at the time, and that 
the people now generally flocked to Christ. 
Hence the remark of John, verse 30, when his 
disciples had informed him that Jesus was bap- 
tizing in the neighborhood, and that "all men 
came to him:" "He must increase, but I must 
decrease." Hence, also, the observation of the 
evangelist in the first verse of the next chapter : 
" The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and 
baptized more disciples than John." 

As these instances all so plainly fail to serve 
the cause of immersion, we need not dwell upon 
the others. The improbability of three thou- 
sand persons being immersed on the day of 
pentecost, has been already mentioned. The 
baptism of Saul, of Lydia, of the Philippian 
jailer, and of the family of Cornelius, are all 
instances of house baptism, and, for that rea- 
son, are still less likely to have been by plunging. 
The Immersionists, indeed, invent "tanks," or 
"baths," for this purpose in all these houses; 
but as nothing of the kind appears on the face 
of the history, or is even incidentally suggested, 
suppositions prove nothing. 

Thus all the presumptions before mentioned, 
against the practice of immersion, lie full against 
it, without any relief from the Scriptures them- 
selves. Not one instance can be shown of that 
practice from the New Testament ; while, so far 
as baptism was emblematical of the pouring out 
of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of immersion 
wholly destroys its significancy. In fact, if the 
true mode of baptism be immersion only, then 
must we wholly give up the phrase, the baptism 
of the Holy Spirit, which in any other mode than 
that of pouring out was never administered. 

The only argument left for the advocates of 
immersion is the supposed allusion to the mode 
of baptism contained in the words of St. Paul, 
Rom. vi. 3, 4 : " Know ye not that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were bap- 
tized into his death ? Therefore we are buried 
with him by baptism., into death ; that, like as 
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
newness of life." It is necessary, however, to 
quote the next verses also, which are dependent 
upon the foregoing: "For if we have been 
planted together," still by baptism, "in the 
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the like- 
ness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our 
old man is crucified with him, thai the body of 
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should 
not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from 
sin." vs. 5-7. Why then do not the advoeatos of 
immersion go forward to these verses, so insepa- 



728 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



rably connected with those they :.:t so ready 
to quote, and show us a resemblance, not only 
between baptism by immersion, and being 
buried with Christ : but also between immersion, 
and being "planted with Christ V 1 If the allu- 
sion of the apostle is to the planting of a young ' 
tree in the earth, there is clearly but a very par- 
tial, not a total immersion in the case ; and if it ' 
be to gbatiixg a branch upon a tree, the re- 
semblance is still more imperfect. Still further, 
as the apostle in the same connection speaks of 
:~r ':ri^r •■ ::.t::::i: ~i:ii Cliris:."' :.n:I :"_;.: 
also by baptism, why do they not show us how ■ 
immersion in water resembles the nailing of a 
body toacr:-- ! 

But this striking and important text is not to ! 
be explained by a fancied resemblance between 
a buriaL as they choose to call it, of the body in ; 
water, and the burial of Christ ; as if a dip or a f 
plunge could hare any resemblance to that sepa- 
ration from the living, and that laying aside of a 
body in the sepulchre, which burial implies. ; 
rhifi Graced thought darkens and enervates the 
whole passage, instead of bringing forth its 
powerful sentiments into clearer view. The ma- 
nifest object of the apostle in the whole of this 
part of his epistle, wsv to show that the doc- 
trine of justification by faith alone, which he had 
just been estabUshing, could not, in any true 
believer, lead to licentiousness of life. • ' What 
then shall we say! Shall we continue in sin that 
grace may abound ? God forbid ! How shall we 
that are dead to sin, live any longer therein V 
The reason then which is given by the apostle 
why true belies g\ z continue in sin, is. 

that they are "dead to sin." which is his an- 
swer to the objection. Now, this mystical death 
: mke proeee is to attribute to the mscsummr- 
talitt of baptism, taking it to be an act of that ' 
faith in Christ of which it was the external ex- 
pression; and then he immediately runs into a 
favorite comparison, which under various forms 
occurs in his writings, sometimes accompanied 
with the same allusion to baptism, and some- 
times referring only to "faith 1 ' as the instru- 
ment — a comparison between the mystical death. 
burial, and resurrection of believers, and the I 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This 

e comparison of the texl : :mparison ' 

between our mystical death and baptism : nor 
between baptism, and the death and burial of 
Christ ; either of which lay wide of the apostle's 
intention. Baptism, as an act of faith, is. in 
fact, expressly made, not a figure of the effects 
which follow, as stated in the text, but the means 
of effecting them. •• Know ye not that so many 
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were 
baptized into his death f* We enter by this means i 



[PART TV. 



into the experience of its efficacy in effecting a 
mystical ieath in us : ia other words, we die 
with him, w = - ssed in verse 6, "Our 

old man is crucified with km." Still further, "by 
baptism,"' did rov 3azrriofiaToc, through, or by 
means of, baptism, " we are bubied with him :" 
we not only die to sin and the world, but we are 
separated wholly from it, as the body of C 

rparated from the living world, when laid 
in the sepulchre: the connection between 
and the world and us is completely broken, as 
those who are buried and put out of sight are 
no longer reckoned among men; nay. as the 
for the apostle brings in this figure also) 
is by death and burial wholly put out of the 
power of his former master, so, " that we should 
not serve sin ; for he that is dead is freed from 
sin." But we also mystically bise with him; 
" that like as Christ was raised up from the dead 
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
waBt in newness of life," having new connec- 
tions, new habits, new enjoyments, and new 
hopes. We have a similar passage in CoL ii 1_. 
and it has a s im ilar interpretation: "Buried 
with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
with him, through the faith of the operation of 
God, who hath raised him from the dead." In 
the preceding verse the apostle had been speak- 
ing of the mystical death of Christians under 
the phrase, -'putting off the body of the sins of 
the flesh ;" then, as in his Epistle to the Bomans, 
he adds our mystical bttrtat. with Christ, which 
is a heightened representation of death : and 
then, also, our bisesg again with Christ. Here 
too all these three effects are attributed to bap- 
tism as the means. We put off the body of sins 

: 7 the circumcision . s we 

have seen, by Christian circumcision or bap : 
we are buried with him by baptism : h being ob- 
viously used here, bike did, to denote the in 
ment : and by baptism we rise with him into a 
new life. 

N : w, to institute a comparison between a mode 
of baptism and the burial of Christ, wholly de- 
■ - the meaning of the passage ; for how can 
the apostle speak of baptism as an emblem of 
when he argues from it as the 
instrument of our death unto sin, and separation 
from it by . mystical burial Nor is baptism 
here made use of as the emblem of our own 
spiritual death, burial, and resurrection. As an 
emblem, even immersion, though it migh: 
forth a clumsy type of burial and rising again, 
is wanting in not being emblematical of death ; 
and yet all three, our mystical death, burial, and 
rising again, are distinctly spoken of, and must 
all be found represented in some type. But the 
ttpb made use of by the apostle is mani: 



CH. IV.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF 



not baptism, but the death, the burial, and the 
resurrection of our Lord ; and in this view he 
pursues this bold and impressive figure to even 
the verge of allegory, in the succeeding verses : 
"For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if 
we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall 
also live with him : knowing that Christ being 
raised from the dead dieth no more : death hath 
no more dominion over him. For in that he died, 
he died unto sin once ; but in that he liveth, he 
liveth unto God : likewise reckon ye also your- 
selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto 
God through Jesus Christ our Lord." 

In the absence therefore of all proof that, in 
any instance found in the New Testament, bap- 
tism was administered by, immersion ; with so 
many presumptions against that indecent prac- 
tice as have been stated ; with the decisive evi- 
dence also of a designed correspondence between 
the baptism, the pouring out, of the Holy Spirit, 
and the baptism, the pouring out, of water ; we 
may conclude, with confidence, that the latter 
was the apostolic mode of administering that 
ordinance ; and that first washing, and then im- 
mersion, were introduced later, toward the latter 
end of the second century, along with several 
other superstitious additions to this important 
sacrament, originating in that "will-worship" 
which presumed to destroy the simplicity of 
God's ordinances, under pretence of 1 rendering 
them more emblematical and impressive. Even 
if immersion had been the original mode of bap- 
tizing, we should, in the absence of any com- 
mand on the subject, direct or implied, have 
thought the Church at liberty to accommodate 
the manner of applying water tv, le body in 
the name of the Trinity, in which the essence of 
the rite consists, to different climates and man- 
ners ; but it is satisfactory to discover that all 
the attempts made to impose upon Christians a 
practice repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to 
the health, and offensive to delicacy, is destitute 
of all scriptural authority, and of really primitive 
practice. 

1 Baptism, as an emblem, points out, 1. The washing 
away of the guilt and pollution of sin. 2. The pouring 
out of the Holy Spirit. In Scripture it is made an emblem 
of these two, and of these only. Some of the superstitions 
above alluded to sin therefore by excess; but immersion 
sins by defect. It retains the emblematical character of the 
rito as to the washing away of sin ; but it loses it entirely 
as to the gift of the Holy Ghost ; and, beyond the washing 
away of sin, is an emblem of nothing for which we have 
any scriptural authority to make it emblematical. Im- 
mersion, therefore, as distinct from every other mode of 
applying water to the body, means nothing. To say that 
it figures our spiritual death and resurrection, has, we have 
seen, no authority from the texts used to provo it; and to 
make a sudden pop under water to be emblematical of 
burial, is as far-fetched a conceit as any which adorns tho 
Emblems of Quarles, without any portion of the ingenuity. 



CHRISTIANITY. 
/ 



729 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHURCH — THE LORD'S 
SUPPER. 

The agreement and difference between baptism 
and the Lord's Supper are well stated by the 
Church of Scotland in its catechism: "The sa- 
craments of baptism and the Lord's Supper 
agree, in that the author of both is God; the 
spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits ; 
both are seals of the same covenant ; to be dis- 
pensed by ministers of the gospel, and none 
other; and to be continued in the Church of 
Christ until his second coming." " These sacra- 
ments differ, in that baptism is to be adminis- 
tered but once with water — and that even to in- 
fants ; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be ad- 
ministered often, in the elements of bread and 
wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual 
nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our con- 
tinuance and growth in him, and that only to 
such as are of years and ability to examine them- 
selves." 

As baptism was substituted for circumcision, 
so the Lord's Supper was put by our Saviour in 
the place of the passover ; and was instituted 
immediately after celebrating that ordinance for 
the last time with his disciples. The passover 
was an eminent type of our Lord's sacrifice and 
of its benefits ; and since he was about to fulfil 
that symbolical rite which from age to age had 
continued to exhibit it to the faith and hope of 
ancient saints, it could have no place under the 
new dispensation. Christ in person became the 
true passover ; and a new rite was necessary to 
commemorate the spiritual deliverance of men, 
and to convey and confirm its benefits. The cir- 
cumstances of its institution are explanatory of 
its nature and design. 

On the night when the first-born of Egypt 
were slain, the children of Israel were com- 
manded to take a lamb for every house, to kill 
it, and to sprinkle the blood upon the posts of 
their doors, so that the destroying angel might 
pass over the houses of all who had attended to 
this injunction. Not only were the first-born 
children thus preserved alive, but the effect was 
the deliverance of the whole nation from their 
bondage in Egypt, and their becoming the visible 
Church and the people of God by virtue of a 
special covenant. In commemoration of these 
events, the feast of the passover was made 
annual; and at that time all the males oi' .Indea 
assembled beforo the Lord in Jerusalem : a lamb 
was provided for every house: the blood was 
poured under the altar by tho priests, ami the 
lamb was eaten by the people in their tents or 



730 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



houses. At this domestic and religious feast, 
every master of a family took the cup of thanks- 
giving, and gave thanks with his family to the 
God of Israel. As soon, therefore, as our Lord, 
acting as the master of his family, the disciples, 
had #hished this the usual paschal ceremony, he 
proceeded to a new and distinct action: "He 
took bread," the bread then on the table, "and 
gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to them, 
saying, This is my body which is given for you : 
this do in remembrance of me. Likewise, also, 
the cup after supper," the cup with the wine 
which had been used in the paschal supper, 
" saying, This cup is the Xew Testament in my 
blood, which is shed for you;" or, as it is ex- 
pressed by St. Matthew, "And he took the cup, 
and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 
Drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the 
Xew Testament, which is shed for many for the 
remission of sins." 

That this was the institution of a standing rite, 
and not a temporary action, to be confined to the 
disciples then present with him, is made certain 
from 1 Cor. xi. 23-26 : " For I have received of 
the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, 
that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he 
was betrayed, took bread ; and when he had 
given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat : 
this is my body, which is broken for you : this 
do in remembrance of me. After the same man- 
ner also he took the cup, when he had supped, 
saying, This cup is the new testament in my 
blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re- 
membrance of me. For as often as ye eat this 
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 
death till he come." From these words we learn, 
1. That St. Paul received a special revelation as 
to this ordinance, which must have had a higher 
object than the mere commemoration of an 
historical fact, and must be supposed to have 
been made for the purpose of enjoining it upon 
him to establish this rite in the Churches raised 
up by him, and of enabling him rightly to under- 
stand its authority and purport, where he found 
it already appointed by the first founders of the 
first Churches. 2. That the command of Christ, 
" This do in remembrance of me," which was 
originally given to the disciples present with 
Christ at the last passover, is laid by St. Paul 
upon the Corinthians. 3. That he regarded the 
Lord's Supper as a rite to be "■often" celebrated, 
and that in all future time until the Lord him- 
self should "come" to judge the world. The 
perpetual obligation of this ordinance cannot, 
therefore, be reasonably disputed. 

Of the nature of this great and affecting rite 
of Christianity different and very opposite opin- 
ions have been formed, arising partly from the 



[PART IV. 

; elliptical and figurative modes of expression 
adopted by Christ at its institution; but more 
especially from the influence of superstition upon 

. some, and the extreme of affected rationalism 

j upon others. 

The first is the monstrous theory of the Church 
of Eome, as contradictory to the Holy Scriptures, 

| whose words it professes to receive in their 
literal meaning, as it is revolting to the senses 

, and reason of mankind. 

"It is conceived that the words, 'This is my 
body; this is my blood,' are to be understood in 
their most literal sense : that when Jesus pro- 
nounced these words, he changed, by his almighty 
power, the bread upon the table into his body, 
and the wine into his blood, and really delivered 
his body and blood into the hands of his apostles ; 
and that at all times when the Lord's Supper is 
administered, the priest, by pronouncing these 
words with a good intention, has the power of 
making a similar change. This change is known 
by the name of transubstantiation, the propriety 
of which name is conceived to consist in this, 
that although the bread and wine are not changed 
in figure, taste, weight, or any other accident, it 
is believed that the substance of them is com- 
pletely destroyed : that, in place of it, the sub- 
stance of the body and blood of Christ, although 
clothed with all the sensible properties of bread 
and wine, is truly present ; and that the persons 
who receive what has been consecrated by pro- 
nouncing these words, do not receive bread and 

I 
wine, but literally partake of the body and blood 

of Christ, and really eat his flesh, and drink his 
blood. It is further conceived, that the bread 
and wine thus changed are presented by the 
priest to God ; and he receives the name of priest 
because, in laying them upon the altar, he offers 
to God a sacrifice, which, although it be dis- 
tinguished from all others by being without the 
shedding of blood, is a true propitiatory sacri- 
fice for the sins of the dead and of the living — 
the body and blood of Christ, which were pre- 
sented on the cross, again presented in the sacri- 
fice of the mass. It is conceived that the mate- 
rials of this sacrifice, being truly the body and 
blood of Christ, possess an intrinsic virtue, which 
does not depend upon the disposition of him who 
receives them, but operates immediately upon all 
who do not obstruct the operation by a mortal 

i sin. Hence it is accounted of great importance 
for the salvation of the sick and dying, that parts 
of these materials should be sent to them ; and 

| it is understood that the practice of partaking 
in private of a small portion of what the priest 
has thus transubstantiated, is, in all respects, as 
proper and salutary as joining with others in the 
Lord's Supper. It is further conceived, that as 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



CH. IV.] 

the bread and wine, -when converted into the j 
[body and] blood of Christ, are a natural object ' 
of reverence and adoration to Christians, it is 
highly proper to worship them upon the altar ; 
and that it is expedient to carry them about in 
solemn procession, that they may receive the 
homage of all who meet them. What had been 
transubstantiated was, therefore, lifted up for 
the purpose of receiving adoration, both when it 
was shown to the people at the altar, and when 
it was carried about. Hence arose that expres- 
sion in the Church of Rome, the elevation of the 
host, elevatio hostice. But as the wine in being 
carried about was exposed to accidents incon- 
sistent with the veneration due to the body and 
blood of Christ, it became customary to send 
only the bread; and, in order to satisfy those 
who for this reason did not receive the wine, 
they were taught that, as the bread was changed 
into the body of Christ, they partook by con- 
comitancy of the blood with the body. In pro- 
cess of time the people were not allowed to par- 
take of the cup ; and it was said that when 
Jesus spake these words, ' Drink ye all of it,' he 
was addressing himself only to his apostles, 
so that his command was fulfilled when the 
priests, the successors of the apostles, drank of 
the cup, although the people were excluded. 
And thus the last part of this system conspired 
with the first in exalting the clergy very far 
above the laity. For the same persons who had 
the power of changing bread and wine into the 
body and blood of Christ, and who presented 
what they had thus made as a sacrifice for the 
sins of others, enjoyed the partaking of the cup, 
while communion in one kind only was permitted 
to the people." — Bishop Tomline on the Articles. 

So violently are these notions opposed to the 
common sense of mankind, that the ground to 
which the Romish writers have always been 
driven in their defence is the authority of their 
Church, and the necessity of implicit faith in its 
interpretations of Scripture — principles which 
shut out the use of Scripture entirely, and open 
the door to every heresy and fanatical folly. 
But for the ignorance and superstition of Europe 
during the middle ages, this monstrous perver- 
sion of a sacred rite could not have been effected ; 
and even then it was not established as an arti- 
cle of faith without many struggles. Almost all 
Writers on the Protestant controversy will fur- 
nish a sufficient confutation of this capital 
attempt to impose upon the credulity of man- 
kind ; and to them, should it need any refuta- 
tion, the reader may be referred. 

The mind of Luther, so powerful to throw off 
dogmas which had nothing but human authority 
to support them, was, as to the sacrament, held 



731 



in the bonds of early association. He concluded 
that the body and blood of Christ are really 
present in the Lord's Supper ; but, aware of the 
absurdities and self-contradictions of transub- 
stantiation, he laid hold of a doctrine which some 
writers, in the Bomish Church itself, had con- 
tinued to prefer to the papal dogma above stated. 
This was designated by the term consubstantia- 
tion, which allows that the bread and wine re- 
main the same after consecration as before. 
Thus he escapes the absurdity of contradicting 
the very senses of men. It was held, however, 
by Luther, that though the bread and wine re- 
main unchanged, yet that, together with them, the 
body and blood of Christ are literally received 
by the communicants. Some of his immediate 
followers did not, however, admit more on this 
point than that the body and blood of Christ 
were really present in the sacrament ; but that 
the manner of that presence was an inexplicable 
mystery. Yet, in some important respects, 
Luther and the Consubstantialists wholly es- 
caped the errors of the Church of Borne as to 
this sacrament. They denied that it was a sacri- 
fice, and that the presence of the body and blood 
of Christ gave to it any physical virtue acting 
independently of the disposition of the receiver, 
and that it rendered the elements the objects of 
adoration. Their error, therefore, may be con- 
sidered rather of a speculative than of a practi- 
cal nature, and was adopted probably in defer- 
ence to what was conceived to be the literal 
meaning of the words of Christ when the Lord's 
Supper was instituted. 

A third view was held by some of Luther's 
contemporaries, which has been thus described : 
" Carolostadt, a professor with Luther in the 
university of Wittenberg, and Zuinglius, a native 
of Switzerland, the founder of the Reformed 
Churches, or those Protestant Churches which 
are not Lutheran, taught that the bread ami 
wine in the Lord's Supper are the signs of the 
absent body and blood of Christ: that when 
Jesus said, ' This is my body : this is my blood," 
he used a figure exactly of the same kind with 
that by which, according to the abbreviations 
continually practiced in ordinary speech, the 
sign is often put for the thing signified. As thifl 
figure is common, so there were two circum- 
stances which would prevent the apostles from 

misunderstanding it when used in the institution 
of the Lord's Supper. The one was, that they 
saw the body of Jesus then alive, and, therefore, 
could not supposo that thev were eating it. 

The other was, that they had just been partak- 
ing of a .Jewish festival, in the institution o( 
which the very same figure had been used. For 
in the night in which the children oi' Israel 



732 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



[PART IY. 



escaped out of Egypt, God said of the lamb 
■which he commanded every house to eat and 
slay, 'It is the Lord's passover,' Exod. xii. 11 ; 
not meaning that it was the action of the Lord 
passing over every house, but the token and 
pledge of that action. It is admitted by all 
Christians that there is such a figure used in one 
part of the institution. When our Lord says, 
' This cup is the new covenant in my blood,' none 
suppose him to mean the cup is the covenant, 
but all believe that he means to call it the memo- 
rial, or the sign, or the seal of the covenant. If 
it be understood that, agreeably to the analogy 
of language, he uses a similar figure when he 
says, ' This is my body,' and that he means no- 
thing more than, ' This is the sign of my body,' 
we are delivered from all the absurdities implied 
in the literal interpretation, to which the Roman 
Catholics think it necessary to adhere. We give 
the words a more natural interpretation than the 
Lutherans do, who consider, 'This is my body,' 
as intended to express a proposition which is 
totally different — ' My body is with this ;' and we 
escape from the difficulties in which they are in- 
volved by their forced interpretation. 

"Further, by this method of interpretation, 
there is no ground left for that adoration which 
the Church of Rome pays to the bread and wine ; 
for they are only the signs of that which is be- 
lieved to be absent. There is no ground for ac- 
counting the Lord's Supper, to the dishonor of 
' the High Priest of our profession,' a new sacri- 
fice presented by an earthly priest ; for the bread 
and wine are only the memorials of that sacri- 
fice which was once offered on the cross. And, 
lastly, this interpretation destroys the popish 
idea of a physical virtue in the Lord's Supper ; 
for if the bread and wine are signs of what is 
absent, their use must be to excite the remem- 
brance of it; but this is a use which cannot 
possibly exist with regard to any, but those 
whose minds are thereby put into a proper 
frame ; and therefore the Lord's Supper be- 
comes, instead of a charm, a mental exercise, 
and the efficacy of it arises not ex qpere operato, 
but ex opere operantis." 

With much truth, this opinion falls short of 
the whole truth, and therefore it has been made 
the basis of that view of the Lord's Supper which 
reduces it to a mere religious commemoration of 
the death of Christ, with this addition, that it 
has a natural fitness to produce salutary emo- 
tions, to possess our minds with religious reflec- 
tions, and to strengthen virtuous resolutions. 
Some divines of the Church of England, and 
the Socinians generally, have adopted, and en- 
deavored to defend, this interpretation. 

The fourth opinion is that of the Reformed 



Churches, and was taught with great success by 
Calvin. It has been thus well epitomized by 
Dr. Hill: — 

"He knew that former attempts to reconcile 
the systems of Luther and Zuinglius had proved 
fruitless. But he saw the importance of uniting 
Protestants upon a point with respect to which 
they agreed in condemning the errors of the 
Church of Rome ; and his zeal in renewing the 
attempt was probably quickened by the sincere 
friendship which he entertained for Melancthon, 

i who was the successor of Luther, while he him- 

! self had succeeded Zuinglius in conducting the 
reformation in Switzerland. He thought that 
the system of Zuinglius did not come up to the 
force of the expressions used in Scripture ; and 
although he did not approve of the manner in 
which the Lutherans explain these expressions, 
it appeared to him that there was a sense in 
which the full significancy of them might be 
preserved, and a great part of the Lutheran lan- 
guage might continue to be used. As he agreed 
with Zuinglius in thinking that the bread and 
wine were the signs of the body and blood of 
Christ, which were not locally present, he re- 
nounced both transubstantiation and consub- 
stantiation. He agreed further with Zuinglius 
in thinking that the use of these signs, being a 
memorial of the sacrifice once offered on the 

| cross, was intended to produce a moral effect. 

| But he taught that to all who remembered the 
death of Christ in a proper manner, Christ, by 
the use of these signs, is spiritually present — 
present to their minds ; and he considered this 
spiritual presence as giving a significancy, that 
goes far beyond the Socinian sense, to these 
words of Paul : ' The cup of blessing which we 
bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
Christ ? the bread which we break, is it not the 
communion of the body of Christ?' It is not 
the blessing pronounced which makes any change 
upon the cup ; but to all who join with becoming 
affection in the thanksgiving then uttered in the 
name of the congregation, Christ is spiritually 
present, so that they may emphatically be said 
to partake, koivovelv, fierexew, of his body and 
blood ; because his body and blood being spirit- 
ually present, convey the same nourishment to 
their souls, and the same quickening to the spi- 
ritual life, as bread and wine do to the natural 
life. Hence Calvin was led to connect the dis- 

I course in John vi. with the Lord's Supper ; not 
in that literal sense which is agreeable to popish 
and Lutheran ideas, as if the body of Christ 
was really eaten and his blood really drunk by 
any ; but in a sense agreeable to the expression 
of our Lord in the conclusion of that discourse, 
' The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit 



CH. IV.] 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



733 



and they are life ; ' that is, when I say to you, 
* Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
dwelleth in me and I in him ; he shall live by 
me, for my flesh is meat indeed,' you are to un- 
derstand these words, not in a literal but in a 
spiritual sense. The spiritual sense adopted by 
the Socinians is barely this, that the doctrine of 
Christ is the food of the soul, by cherishing a 
life of virtue here, and the hope of a glorious 
life hereafter. The Calvinists think, that into 
the full meaning of the figure used in these 
words, there enter not merely the exhortations 
and instructions which a belief of the gospel 
affords, but also that union between Christ and 
his people which is the consequence of faith, and 
that communication of grace and strength by 
which they are quickened in well-doing, and pre- 
pared for the discharge of every duty. 

"According to this system, the full benefit of 
the Lord's Supper is peculiar to those who par- 
take worthily. For while all who eat the bread 
and drink the wine may be said to show the 
Lord's death, and may also receive some devout 
impressions, they only to whom Jesus is spiritu- 
ally present share in that spiritual nourishment 
which arises from partaking of his body and 
blood. According to this system, eating and 
drinking unworthily has a further sense than 
enters into the Socinian system ; and it becomes 
the duty of every Christian to examine himself, 
not only with regard to his knowledge, but also 
with regard to his general conduct, before he 
eats of that bread and drinks of that cup. It 
becomes also the duty of those who have the in- 
spection of Christian societies, to exclude from 
this ordinance persons of whom there is every 
reason to believe that they are strangers to the 
sentiments which it presupposes, and without 
which none are prepared for holding that com- 
munion with Jesus which it implies." — Theolo- 
gical Lectures. 

With this view the doctrine of the Church of 
England seems mainly to agree, except that we 
may perhaps perceive in her services a few ex- 
pressions somewhat favorable to the views of 
Luther and Melancthon, whose authority had 
great weight with Archbishop Cranmer. This, 
however, appears only in certain phrases ; for 
the twenty-eighth article declares with sufficient 
plainness that "the body of Christ is given, 
taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a hea- 
venly and spiritual manner; and the mean where- 
by the body of Christ is received and eaten in 
the Supper, is faith." " Some of our early Eng- 
lish reformers," says Bishop Tomlino, " were Lu- 
therans, and consequently they were at first dis- 
posed to lean toward cousubstantiation ; but they 
seem soon to have discovered their error, for in 



the articles of 1552 it is expressly said, 'A faith- 
ful man ought not either to believe or openly 
confess the real and bodily presence, as they 
term it, of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's Supper.' This part of the 
article was omitted in 1562, probably with a view 
to give less offence to those who maintained the 
corporal presence, and to comprehend as many 
as possible in the established Church." [Expo- 
sition of the Articles.) The article as it now 
stands, and not particular expressions in the 
liturgy, must however be taken to be the opinion 
of the Church of England upon this point, and 
it substantially agrees with the New Testament. 

The sacramental character of this ordinance 
is the first point to be established, in order to a 
true conception of its nature and import. It is 
more than a commemorative rite, it is commemo- 
rative sacramentally ; in other words, it is a com- 
memorative sign and seal of the covenant of our 
redemption. 

The first proof of this may be deduced from 
our Lord's words used in the institution of the 
ordinance : " This is my body, this is my blood," 
are words which show a most intimate connec- 
tion between the elements, and that which was 
represented by them, the sacrificial offering of 
the body and blood of Christ, as the price of our 
redemption: they were the signs of what was 
"given for us," surrendered to death in our 
room and stead, that we might have the benefit 
of liberation from eternal death. Again, "This 
is the New Testament," or covenant, "in my 
blood." The covenant itself was ratified by the 
blood of Christ, and it is therefore called by St. 
Paul, "the blood of the everlasting covenant;" 
and the cup had so intimate a connection with 
that covenant, as to represent it and the means 
of its establishment, or of its acquiring validity 
— the shedding of the blood of our Saviour. It 
is clear, therefore, that the rite of the Lord's 
Supper is a covenant rite, and consequently a sa- 
crament ; a visible sign and seal, on the part of 
Him who made the covenant, that it was estab- 
lished in, and ratified by, the sacrificial death of 
Christ. 

As it bears this covenant or saci*amental char- 
acter on the part of the Institutor, so also on 
the part of the recipients. They wore all to oat 
the bread in "remembrance" of Christ; in ro- 
membrance, certainly, of his death in particular; 
yet not as a mere historical event, but of his 
death as sacrificial; and therefore the oonnno- 
moration was to be on their part an acknow- 
ledgment of the doctrine of the vicarious and 
propitiatory nature of the death of Christ, and 
an act of faith in it. Thon as to the OOp, they 
were oommanded to drink ot it. for a reason also 



734 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



particularly given, "For this is my blood of the 
New Testament, which is shed for many for the 
remission of sins:" the recognition, therefore, 
implied in the act, was not merely that Christ's 
blood was shed, but that it was shed as the blood 
of " the new covenant, " and for "the remission 
of sins;" a recognition which could only take 
place in consequence of "faith in his blood," as 
the blood of atonement. Again, says St. Paul, 
as taught by the particular revelation he received 
as to the Lord's Supper, " For as often as ye eat 
this bread and drink this cup, ye do show, or pub- 
lish, the Lord's death until he come;" which 
publication of his death was not the mere decla- 
ration of the fact of " the Lord's death," but of 
his death according to the apostolic doctrine, as 
the true propitiation for sin, the benefits of which 
were to be received by faith. Thus then we see 
in the Lord's Supper the visible token and pledge 
of a covenant of mercy in the blood of Christ, 
exhibited by God its author ; and on the part of 
man a visible acknowledgment of this covenant 
so ratified by the sacrifice of Christ, and an act 
of entire faith in its truth and efficacy in order 
to the remission of sins, and the conferring of all 
other spiritual benefits. As a sign, it exhibits, 
1. The infinite love of God to the world, who 
gave "his only-begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life." 2. The love of Christ, who 
"died the just for the unjust, that he might 
bring us to God." 3. The extreme nature of his 
sufferings, which were unto death. 4. The vica- 
rious and sacrificial character of that death, as 
a sin-offering and a propitiation; in virtue of 
which only, a covenant of grace was entered into 
with man by the offended God. 5. The benefits 
derived from it through believing, "remission 
of sins;" and the nourishment of the soul in 
spiritual life and vigor, by virtue of a vital " com- 
munion" with Christ, so that it is advanced and 
perfected in holiness, "until he come" to confer 
upon his disciples the covenanted blessing of eter- 
nal life. As a seal, it is a constant assurance, on 
% the part of God, of the continuance of this cove- 
nant of redemption in full undiminished force 
from age to age : it is a pledge to every penitent 
who believes in Christ, and receives this sacra- 
ment in profession of his entire reliance upon 
the merits of Christ's passion for forgiveness, 
that he is an object of merciful regard and ac- 
ceptance : there is in it also, as to every one who 
thus believes and is accepted, a constant exhibi- 
tion of Christ as the spiritual food of the soul, 
to be received by faith, that he may grow there- 
by ; and a renewed assurance of the bestowment 
of the full grace of the new covenant, in the ac- 
complishment of all its promises, both in this life 



[PART iv. 



and in that which is to come. In every celebra- 
tion, the sign of all these gracious acts, provi- 
sions, and hopes, is exhibited, and God conde- 
scends thus to repeat his pledges of faithfulness 
and love to the Church of Christ, purchased by 
his blood. The members of that Church, on the 
other hand, renew their acceptance of, and reli- 
ance upon, the new covenant : they publish their 
faith in Christ; they glory in his cross, his sacri- 
ficial though shameful death, as the wisdom of 
God, and the power of God ; they feast upon the 
true passover victim by their faith, and they do 
this with jog and thanksgiving, on account of a 
greater deliverance than that of the Israelites 
from Egypt, of which they are the subjects. It 
was this predominance of thanksgiving in cele- 
brating this hallowed rite, which at so early a 
period of the Church attached to the Lord's Sup- 
per the title of " The Eucharist:' 

We may conclude this view by a few general 
observations. 

1. The very nature of the ordinance of the 
Lord's Supper excludes from participating in it 
not only open unbelievers, but all who reject the 
doctrine of the atonement made by the vicarious 
death of Christ for "the remission of sins." 
Such persons have indeed tacitly acknowledged 
this, by reducing the rite to a mere commemora- 
tion of the fact of Christ's death, and of those 
virtues of humility, benevolence, and patience, 
which his sufferings called forth. If, therefore, 
the Lord's Supper be in truth much more than 
this : if it recognize the sacrificial character of 
Christ's death, and the doctrine of "faith in his 
blood," as necessary to our salvation, this is "an 
altar of which they have no right to eat" who 
reject these doctrines ; and from the Lord's table 
all such persons ought to be repelled by minis- 
ters, whenever, from compliance with custom, or 
other motives, they would approach it. 

2. It is equally evident that when there is no 
evidence in persons of true repentance for sin, 
and of desire for salvation, according to the terms 
of the gospel, they are disqualified from partak- 
ing at " the table of the Lord." They eat and 
drink unworthily, and fall therefore into "con- 
demnation." The whole act is indeed on their 
part an act of bold profanation or of hypocrisy : 
they profess by this act to repent, and have no 
sorrow for sin ; they profess to seek deliverance 
from its guilt and power, and yet remain will- 
ingly under its bondage ; they profess to trust in 
Christ's death for pardon, and are utterly uncon- 
cerned respecting either ; they profess to feed 
upon Christ, and hunger and thirst after nothing 
but the world ; they place before themselves the 
sufferings of Christ, but when they "look upon 
him whom they have pierced," they do not 



CH. IV.] 

"mourn for him," and they grossly offend the 
all-present Majesty of heaven, by thus making 
light of Christ, and "grieving the Holy Spirit." 

3. It is a part of Christian discipline in every 
religious society to prevent such persons from 
communicating with the Church. They are ex- 
pressly excluded by apostolic authority, as well 
as by the original institution of this sacrament, 
which was confined to Christ's disciples; and 
ministers would "partake of other men's sins," 
if knowingly they were to admit to the Supper 
of the Lord those who in their spirit and lives 
deny him. 

4. On the other hand, the table of the Lord is 
not to be surrounded with superstitious terrors. 
All are welcome there who truly love Christ, and 
all who sincerely desire to love, serve, and obey 
him. All truly penitent persons : all who feel 
the burden of their sins, and are willing to re- 
nounce them : all who take Christ as the sole 
foundation of their hope, and are ready to com- 
mit their eternal interests to the merits of his 
sacrifice and intercession, are to be encouraged 
to " draw near with faith, and to take this holy 
sacrament to their comfort." In it God visibly 
exhibits and confirms his covenant to them, and 
he invites them to become parties to it, by the 
act of their receiving the elements of the sacra- 
ment in faith. 

5. For the frequency of celebrating this ordi- 
nance we have no rule in the New Testament. 
The early Christians observed it every Sabbath, 
and exclusion from it was considered a severe 
sentence of the Church, when only temporary. 



INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



735 



The expression of the apostle, "as often as ye eat 
this bread," intimates that the practice of com- 
munion was frequent ; and perhaps the general 
custom in this country of a monthly administra- 
tion will come up to the spirit of the ancient in- 
stitution. That it was designed, like the pass- 
over, to be an annual celebration only, has no 
evidence from Scripture, and is contradicted by 
the most ancient practice. 

6. The habitual neglect of this ordinance by 
persons who profess a true faith in Christ, is 
highly censurable. We speak not now of Qua- 
kers and Mystics, who reject it altogether, in the 
face of the letter of their Bibles ; but of many 
who seldom or never communicate, principally 
from habits of inattention to an obligation which 
they do not profess to deny. In this case a plain 
command of Christ is violated, though not per- 
haps with direct intention ; and the benefit of 
that singularly affecting means of grace is lost, 
in which our Saviour renews to us the pledges of 
his love, repeats the promises of his covenant, 
and calls for invigorated exercises of our faith, 
only to feed us the more richly with the bread 
that comes down from heaven. If a peculiar 
condemnation falls upon those who partake "un- 
worthily," then a peculiar blessing must follow 
from partaking worthily; and it therefore be- 
comes the duty of every minister to explain the 
obligation, and to show the advantages of this 
sacrament, and earnestly to enforce its regular 
observance upon all those who give satisfactory 
evidence of "repentance toward God, and faith 
toward our Lord Jesus Christ." 






INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE 

EXPOUNDED IN THE INSTITUTES. 



GENESIS. 

i Page 141-145 

i. 1 204, 264 333, 

i. 2 354 

i. 5 647 

i. 16 204 

i. 26, 27 140, 264, 317, 364, 387 

i. 28 , 362, 389, 474, 664 

i. 31 222, 243, 366, 410, 575 

ii. 1-3 26,644-651 

ii. 7 196, 387 

ii. 15-17.... 370, 382, 387, 445. 464, 520, 
581-583. 

ii. 17 250 

ii. 18 302 

ii. 19, 20 367 

ii. 23,24 372,664 

iii 26, 370, 464 

iii. 1, 14, 15 373, 381 

iii. 8, 9 283, 318, 321 

iii. 14, 15 98,104 

iii. 15 27,461,465,591 

iii. 17 241 

iii. 17-19 382, 385, 3S9 

iii. 22 264 

iii. 24 99 

iv. 3-8 456-461 

iv. 7 597 

iv. 15 98 

iv. 19-24 664 

v. 3 384,396,405 

V. 22, 24 363 

vi. 1, 4 473 

vi. 3 281, 355, 407, 408, 477 

vi. 5, 12, 13 22, 393, 397 

vi. 13-15 283, 363, 473 

vi. 14-22 146 

vii 459 

vii. 1 363, 393 

vii. 2, 3 455, 474 

viii 26 

viii. 6-12 649 

viii. 20-22 456 

viii. 21 397 

ix. 3, 4 455, 456 

ix. 6 365, 656, 660, 661 

ix. 21-27 668 

xi. 6, 7 264, 283, 394 

xi. 9 98 

xii. 1-5 460 

xiii. 18 638 

xiv. 14 656 

xiv. 16-22 47 

xiv. 18-20 22 

xv 459 

xv. 1 302, 403 

xv. 1,2,4 817,318,821 

xv. 6 489-494, 503-505 

xv. 18 114 

xvi. 7-13 274, 277, 818, 821 

xvii. 1 233,277 

xvii. 302 

xvii. 7, 8 534, 704, 714, 722 

xvii. 12, 13, 27 655, 657 

xvii. 1-1 7»il 

xvii. 15-2L 6J I. 670, 672 

■17 



xviii 274, 277, 283 

xviii. 25 61, 248, 410, 551, 607, 608 

xix. 23,24 283, 321 

xix. 24 264 

xx 22 

xxi. 33 318 

xxii. 1-18 137, 275, 277, 459 

xxii. 14 285 

xxii. 18 533 

xxv. 23 535 

xxvi 22 

xxviii. 13 321 

xxviii. 16 274 

xxviii. 19-22 649 

xxix. 27 649 

xxxi. 11, 13 274, 278 

xxxii. 24-30 274, 283 

xxxiii. 19, 20 638 

xxxv. 6, 7 264, 638 

xxxix. 9 618 

xli. 25, 38, 39 23 

xlviii. 15, 16 274, 277, 278 

xlix. 10-12 106, 318 

xlix. 18 318 

1. 10 649 

1. 20 603 

EXODUS. 

iii. 2-6 275, 277, 283, 321 

iii. 14.... 201, 263, 285 

iv. 1-5 47 

v. 3 454, 472 

vi. 2, 3 287 

vi. 12, 30 618 

vii.l 289, 290 

vii. 8-25 91 

vii. 11, 22 99 

vii. 19-21 100 

viii. 5-19 91, 92 

viii. 7, 18 99 

viii. 8 100 

ix. 16 538 

x. 21-23 85 

x. 25, 26 472 

xi 86 

xii 86, 447,. 639, 729 

xii. 11 732 

xii. 16 652 

xiii. 1-10... 729 

xiii. 1-16 67, -I IT 

xiv 6.9, Si; 

xiv. 29 724 

xv. 19 721 

xvi 87,461,645-652 

xvi. 32-35 66 

xvii. 1-7 462 

xvii. 15 285 

xviii. 21,22 (75 

xx. 2, 3 261,274,341 

xx. 8-11 645-652, 657, 672 

xx. 12 667 

\\. 13 669 

xx. L8-16 

x\. 18, l.i. 17 656, 669 

xx. 21 326 

xxi. 1-6 601 



xxi. 16 656 

xxii. 20 342 

xxiii. 20-23 275, 277 

xxvii 536 

xxx. 12-16 445 

xxxii. 34 275 

xxxiii. 2, 14, 15 275 

xxxiii. 17-19 536 

xxxiii. 20, 23 277 

xxxiv. 6, 7 150, 233 

xxxv. 3 652, 672 

xl. 34 274 

LETITICUS. 

i 455 

i. 3 454 

iv 445, 454 

iv. 21. 28, 29 451 

v. 15,16 445 

vi. 1-5 454 

vi. 25 451 

xi 67 

xv. 31 ' 446 

xvi 445-447, 452 

xvii. 10, 11 445, 456 

xix. 15 674 

xix. 18 653 

xxii. 9 421 

xxv. 39-55 656,657, 661 

xxvi. 28 420 

NUMBERS. 

ii. 47-54 67 

iii 67 

iv 67 

v. 8 422 

vi. 24-27 265, 356 

viii. 17, 18 66 

ix. 15-23 47 

xv. 32-36 652 

xvi. 22 195 

xvii. 10 66 

xix. 19 721 

xxi. 9 67 

xxiii. 19 281 

xxiii. 23 91 

xxiv. 1 91 

xxvii. 21 67 

xxviii 446 

xxxv 669 

xxxv. 25, 28 67 

DEUTERONOMY. 

ii. 5 513 

iv. 2 70 

iv. 7 818 

i\. 82 866 

iv. 35 191 

v. 15 67 

v. 22 284 

\i. I 191, 264 

vi. 6,7 

\i. 7 

M. In 

(787) 



738 



INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 





136 


■vii. 6 


532 


vii. 9 


251 


ix. 3 


318 


ix. 20 


222 


x. 14 


152 


x. 15. 16 

x. 17. 


532, 710, 711 

249 


x. 20 




xi. 2-8 


69 


xii. 32 


79 




93 


xv. 12-18 


661 




447 






xvii. 18-20 


66. 79 






xxi. 18-21 


136 


xxi. 22, 23 


657 






XXV. 4 „.... 


657 




710 


xxx. 11-13 




xxx. 15, 19 


605 


xxxi. 9-13 




xxxi. 24-26 

xxxi. 29 


66,76,79 




1.V2. <U8 


xxxii. 43 318, 338 

JOSHUA. 


ii 

ii. 11 


469,470 

23 


iii 


68 




68 


vii. 24 


389 


viii. 34. 35 


79 




76 


xxiv. 26, 27 


76 



JUDGES. 



v. 4 

vi. 24... 
xiv. 17 . 
xvi. 15. 



1 SAMUEL. 



724 

285 



618 



211 



ii. 3 

ii. 27, 28 

ii. 30 

iii. 11-14 670 I 

iii. 21 31 

xii. 6-15 7 

xiii. 14 129 ] 

xv. 29 251 

xx. 6 639 ! 

xxviii. 7-20 93 j 

xxix. 4 427 



2 SAMUEL. 



vii. 21 317 

viii 114 

ix. 10 657 

xi. 11 618 

xii. 31 137 

xviii. 33 419 

xLx. 19 489, 494 

xxiii. 3, 4 674 

1 KINGS. 

ii. 5-9 137 

viii. 27 207 

viii. 39 327 

viii. 41-43 533 

xi. 2 294 

xviii. 24 291, 318 

xviii. 38 93 



2 KINGS. 

iii- 11 724 

iv. 23 649 



v. 2-4 23 

v. 27 3S9 

vi. 4. (LXX.) 726 

x.4 618 

xvi. 18 649 

xvii. 24-41 76, 79 

xviii. 4 67 

xx 112 

xx. 18 302 

1 CHRONICLES. 

ix. 32 649 

xvi. 36 296 

xvi. 43 639 

xvii. 19 317 

xviii 114 

xxiii. 4 67 

xxviii. 9 211 

xxix. 11 252 

2 CHRONICLES. 

ii. 4 649 

ii. 12 23 

viii. 13 649 

xvi. 9 212 

xxviii. 8-15 114 

xxxi. 3 649 

xxxvi. 21 649 

xxxvi. 23 24 

EZRA. 

i. 1-4 24, 532 

i. 8 106 

iii. 2 75 

NEHEMIAH. 

viii. 1-5 75. 79 

ix. 5 252 

ix. 20 477 

xiii. 15-22 652 

xiii. 28 79 

ESTHER, 
i. 5 649 

JOB. 

i. 5 448, 638, 669 

i. 12 93. 96 

v. 7 397 

viii. 8 40 

ix. 2 618 

ix. 5-7 205 

ix. 8-10 204 

ix. 10 229 

xi. 7 252 

xi. 12 397 

xiii. 15 506 

xiv. 4 397 

xv. 14 372, 397 

xv. 16 399 

xix. 25 233 

xx. 4, 5 365,371 

xxvi. 6 211 

xxvi. 7-10 204 

xxvi. 11, 12 205 

xxvi. 13 360 

xxvi. 14 152, 206. 229 

xxviii. 24-26 205^ 229 

xxxi. 33 372 

xxxiii. 4 355 

xxxiii. 13 607 

xxxiii. 29,30 476 

xxxiv. 11, 12 249 

xxxiv. 19 249 

xxxvii. 23 152 

xxxviii. 7 145 

xxxviii. 10, 11 205 

xl. 4 478 

xiii. 8 448, 456, 471 

PSALMS. 

ii 299 

ii. 12 343 

viii. 4 140 



ix. 16 551 

i xi. 7 224.248 

xiv. 2, 3 398 

xvi. 11 640 

xviii. 30 317 

xix. 1 339 

• xix. 1,2 157,204,229 

xix. 8, 9 409 

! xix. 13 444.445 

! xxii. 4, 5 496, 631 

j xxii. 28 .' 205 

' xxiv. 1 152 

| xxvii. 1 205 

! xxxii. 1,2 478,486-195 

xxvii. 14 „ 631 

xxxiii. 6 354 

xxxiii. 9 204 

i xxxiii. 11 225 

xxxiv. 8 527 

xxxvi. 6 225 

xxxvi. 9 201 

xxxviii. 9, Heb., 8 Eng 420 

xii. 9 564 

xii. 13 296 

xiii. 8 660 

xiv 293. 310 

xiv. 15 252 

xlvi. 1. 2 32, 631 

xlviii. 2 533 

li.l 246 

li. 5 384, 397 

li. 10 502 

li. 17 478 

Iii. 8 246 

liii. 2. 3 398 

lvi. 3 206 

lvii. 10 251 

lviii. 3, 4 397 

lxii. 8 637 

lxvii. 1, 2 29 

lxviii. 8, 9 724 

lxviii. 16-29 281 

lxviii. 20 94 

lxxii 340 

lxxii. 18, 19 253 

lxxiii. li 618 

Ixxiii. 25 630 

lxxv. 7 205, 676 

lxxxii. 1, 6 290 

lxxviii. 25 264 

lxxxiii. 18 285 

lxxxv. 10 403, 442 

Ixxxvi. 8 204 

lxxxvi. 10 191 

lxxxviii 517 

lxxxviii. 18 297 

lxxxix. 52 296 

xc.2 152,201,289 

xciv. 8-10 211 

xcv. 10 477 

xcvi. 3-8 205 

xcvii 339 

xcvii. 2 152 

xcvii. 12 308 

xcviii. 9 302 

c. 3 264 

ci. 5-7 675 

cii. 25-27 201, 225, 326 

ciii. 4. 13 246 

civ. 24 229. 607 

civ. 27-30 355, 360 

civ. 32 205 

cvi. 30, 31 

cvii. 43 

cviii. 4 

cviii. 24 



ex. 1. 



247 
246 
652 
318 



cxix. 13 

cxix. 32 

cxix. 68 

cxix. 120 

exxi. 4 

exxii. 6 

exxiv. 8 

exxxvi 

exxxvi. 1 

exxxix. 1-12 . 
exxxix. 7-10 . 
exxxix. 14.... 

cxliii. 10 

cxlv. 4. 5 



509 



424 
212 



205 



225, 232 

152 

210 

207 

172 



INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE 



739 



cxlv. 9 152, 550 

cxlvi. 6 251 

cxlvii. 5 211 

cxlvii. 17 205 

PROVERBS. 

i. 10 606 

i. 23 571 

i. 24-28 414 

iii. 6 639 

iii. IS 372 

iv. 14 606 

v. 21 210 

viii 301 

ix. 10 264 

xii. 6 366 

xiii. 12 372 

xv. 4 372 

xv. 26 409 

xvi. 4, 5 567, 604 

xx. 6 366 

xx. 28 674 

xxii. 2 640 

xxii. 15 398, 670 

xxiii. 17 632 

xxiv. 23 552 

xxiv. 24 674 

xxix. 15 398 

xxx. 4 270, 303 

EGCLESIASTES. 

iii. 21 200 

v. 8 264, 674 

vii. 14 476 

vii. 29 243, 365 

ix. 3 399 

xii.l 264 

ISAIAH. 

i. 12 475 

i. 19, 20 597 

v. 3 61,224 

vi. 1-10 152, 265, 281, 283, 297, 356 

vi. 3 248 

vi. 5 336 

vi. 9, 10 567-569 

vii. 5-9 114 

vii. 14 109,281,290 

viii. 8 290 

ix. 6 291,325 

ix. 6, 7 281 

xiii 109, 112 

xxvi. 9 250 

xxviii. 13 633 

xxx. 18 246 

xxxiv. 16 266, 356 

xxxv. 5, 6 109 

xxxvi. 2. (LXX.) 726 

xl. 3-5 280, 287 

xl. 12 205, 222 

xl. 15, 17, 22, 23 205 

xl. 25, 26 94 

xli. 23 94 

xiii. 8 276 

xiii. 18 603 

xliii. 8 285 

xliv. 3 477 

xlv. 1 112 

xlv. 1-7 28. 53 

xlv. 5 285 

xlv. 12 365 

xlv. 17 318 

xlv. 24 486 

xlvi. 5, 9, 10 330 

xlvi. 9, 10 101 

xlviii. 16 266, 350 

xlix. 15 246 

1.10 506 

liii 109-112, 214 

liii. 1 567-568 

liii. 3 346 

liii. 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 420, 421, 432 

liii. 6 521,52:5 

liii. 8 320 

liv. 10 226 

lv. 3 301 

lvi. 2 645 

Ivii. 15 201 



lviii. 13, 14 645, 652 

lxi. 10 486 

lxii. 8 275 

lxiii. 10 359, 407 

Ixiii. 15 246 

lxv. 25 372 

lxvi. 1 207 

lxvi. 2 513 | 

JEREMIAH. 

i. 8 318 

ii. 13 635 

iv. 4 710 

viii. 8 618 

x. 25 639 

xvii. 5, 9 398 

xvii. 7 506 

xvii. 9, 10 94 

xvii. 10 327 

xviii 537-540 

xviii. 8, 9 568 

xix 540 

xx. 9 227 

xxiii. 5, 6 286, 480-486 

xxiii. 23, 24 207 

xxvii. 5 365 

xxix. 14 318 

xxxi. 31, 32 278 

xxxii. 41 246 

xxxiii. 16 285, 486 

xxxviii. 14-28 113 

xliv. 4 261, 599 

xlvii. 7 618 

LAMENTATIONS. 

iii. 22... 247 

iv. 16 302 

v. 7 421 

EZEKIEL. 

viii. 12 639 

xviii. 20 413,421,442 

xviii. 25 224 

xviii. 26, 27 227 

xviii. 29 61, 551 

xviii. 32 530, 550, 602 

xxviii. 2-9 289 

xxxiii. 10 618 

xxviii. 13 372 

xliv. 27 422 

xlv. 19 422 

DANIEL. 

i. 17-21 23 

ii. 11 288 

iii 23, 28 

iv. 17, (14, LXX.) 264, 709 

iv. 33, (30, LXX.) 724 

iv. 35 152 

v. 23 660 

ix. 3-20 539 

xii. 2 619 



HOSEA. 



546 
318 



ii. 23 

iv. 9 

vi. 4 408 

vi. 7 399 

xi. 8 246 

xii. 2, 5 275, 2S5 

JOEL, 
ii. 32 287, 338 



ix. 2, 3. 



AMOS. 



JONAH. 



ii. 8. 



207 



569 

251 



MICAH. 

v. 2 109, 802 

vi. 18 238, 288, 246 



HABAKKUK. 
i. 13 152. 226, 24S, 409 

HAGGAI. 
ii. 4-7 266, 356 

ZECHARIAH. 

ix. 9 280 

x. 1 633 

xii. 10 ?.. 360, 734 

xii. 11 259 

xiii. 1 517 

MALACHI. 

i. 2-4 535, 543 

i. 6 264 

ii. 14, 15 664 

iii. 1 278, 283 

iii. 6 225, 226 

iii. 8 653 

MATTHEW. 

i. 18-25 73 

i. 22, 23 2S1, 290, 419 

ii 73,84 

iii. 3 287 

iii. 5, 6 724 

iii. 5-9 415 

iii. 8 502 

iii. 11 357, 725 

iii. 13-17 725, 726 

iii. 15 481 

iii. 16, 17 73, 300, 304, 305, 480, 710 

iv. 8 93 

iv. 10 341 

v. 1 726 

v. 13, 14 534 

v. 17, 19 023, 624, 645 

v. 21, 22 37 

v. 23, 24 427 

v. 27-32 37. 665, 666 

v. 39 73 

vi. 6 637 

vi. 9-13 642 

vi. 12 615 

vi. 24-34 73, 631 

vi. 25 457 

vi. 30 140 

vii. 4 618 

vii. 7 633 

vii. 11 399 

viii. 2 335 

viii. 5-10 84, 496 

viii. 12 424 

viii. 24-27 74 

ix. 2-6 335. 506, 517 

x. 5, 6 707 

x. 20 354 

x. 23 65S 

x. 29-31 140, 152 

x.32 680 

x. 37 66S 

xi. 21 21:5 

xi. 27 862 

xi. 2S-30 513 

xii. 1-8 

xii. 1-13 

xii 21 49 

xii. 26 61« 

xii. 25 327 

xii. 31 

xii. 36, 37 506, 507 

xiii. 5, 20, 21 526, :>27 

xiii. 23 288 

xiii. 42, 50 484 

xiv. 23 

xiv.88 886 

xv. 4-0 668 

xv. 7,8 

XV. '.I 

KV.21-28 

xvi. 16. 17 299 

\\i. is. 19 

xvi. 21 28 

wi. -::\ 

Kviii. LG is 697, 698 

Kvlii. 17 



740 



INDEX OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE 



xviii. 20 326, 348, 639 

xviii. 23-35 432,438 

xix. 3-12 664, 665 

xix. 4 366 

xix. 13-15 393. 552. 716. 721. 722 

xix. 14. 15 372 

xix. 16-19 623. 624 

xix. 24... 73 

xix. 26 291 

xx. 12-1 6 563 I 

xx. 13 250 

xx. 15 607 

XX. 16 549, 554. Sol 

xx. 23 

xx. 28 „ 416. 419, 42S, 453 

xxi. 1-16 279 

xxi. 22 614 

xxi.23 , 45 

xxi. 38 297 i 

xxii. 1-14 557 

xxii. 14 549.554,561 ' 

xxii. 21 : i 675 

xxii. 2:3-32 619 

xxii. 37 260 I 

xxii. 37-39 645 ; 

xxii. 39 653,654 

xxiii. 33 618 ; 

xxiii. 35 363 

xxiii. 37 521.551,605 I 

xxiv. 13 561 i 

xxiv. 24 73. 93 

xxiv.29 2t 

xxiv. 36 328 , 

xxv. 15 673 ! 

xxv. 24 24S, 250 I 

xxv. 24. 26 581 

xxv. 31-46 507 

xxv. 32. 46 205 i 

xxv. 41... 422, 424 

xxvi 73 

xxvi. 11 329 

xxvi. 17-30 639 ' 

xxvi. 23 724 

xxvi. 26-30 701, 703, 730, 733 i 

xxvi. 28 ' 432, 450, 518 ' 

xxvi. 42 ' 433 

xxvi. >id 303 i 

xxvii 73, 85, S8 ', 

xxvii. 24 85 

xxvii. 25 390 [ 

xxvii. 39-44, 54 297 \ 

xxvii. 57 54 

xxviii 73. SS 

xxviii. 16 566 

xxviii. 18-20 70. 348, 477. 703, 707, , 

710. 711. 712. 722. 

xxviii. 19 261. 266, 356 i 

xxviii. 20 ' 291. 326 

MARK. 

i. 1. 2 279 ! 

i. 4. 5 724 

i- 8 725 

i. 9,10 723. 726 

i. 10 710 

i.35 637 I 

i.40 335 

H. 23-2-3 652 

ii. 27 646 I 

iii. 1—5 652 

iii. 5 550 

iv. 37-41 74. 613 

v. 22-43 „ 84 

vi. 46 637 

vii. 2-5 724 

vii. 7 475 

vii. 21-23 399 

vii. 24-30 633 ; 

x. 2-12 664.665 

x. 13-16 393, 716. 720. 721. 722 

x. 25 : : : 73 

x. 45 416. 419. 4-53 | 

xi. 22. 23 ; 496 , 

xi. 28 45 

xii. 7 297 

xii. 17 675 

-27 619 '■ 

xii. 30 260 i 

xii. 30, 31 645. 653, 654 

xii. 31 ; : 502 



xiii. 13 561 

xiii. 22 73 

xiii. 26. 34 330 

xiii. 32 323 

xiv. 12-25 639,730.733 

xvi 73. S3 

xvi. 15. 16 520 

xvi. 16... 257. 400. 495. 514. 522. 523. 529. 

549, 552. 555, 597, 6S1. 705. 707. 

703. 709. 711. 712. 
xvi. 17 335 

LITRE. 

i. 2 323 

i.16. 17 287, 201 

i. 17 29.572 

i. 31-33 281 

i. 34 618 

i.35 311 

i. 68 200 

ii. 1-5, 25-35 84 

ii. 10 528 

ii. 32 532 

ii. 38 29,562 

ii. 51 668 

ii. 52 329 

iii. 16 725 

iii. 21. 22 710. 725 

iii. SS 306 

iv. 16 645 

iv. 17-20 80 

T.8 336 

v. 12 S35 

vi. 12 637 

vii. 8 566 

vii. 12 306 

vii. 44 724 

vii. 47. 43 506 

viii. 13 526 

viii. 42 306 

ix. 1 334 

ix. 35 306 

ix. 47, 48 715 

x. 18 105 

x.19 334 

x. 20 567 

x. 22 249 

x. 27 362. 645, 653. 654 

x. 25 : : 452 

xi. 1-4 642 

xi. 11 419 

xi. 15 613 

xi. 52 539 

xii. 7 615 

xii. 43 655 

xiii. 6-9 541 

xiii. 11-16 „.. 3S0 

xiv. 1-6 652 

xiv. 16-24 521. 333 

xv. 10 140 

xr. 11-32 510 

xvi. 1-13 655 

xvi. 13 201 

xvi. 22. 23 617 

xvii. 10 508 

xviii. 1 633 

xviii. 7 615 

xviii. 13. 14 475 

xviii. 15-17 716. 721 

xviii. 25 73 

xix. 10 418.523 

xix. 12 673 

xix. 21. 22 5-1 

xix. 26 385 

xix. 25-45 251 

xix. 41,42 602 

xx. 25 675 

619 

6S3 

xxii. 7-20 639, 730. 733 

xxii. 70, 71 308 

xxiii 73. 55. S3 

xxiii. 35-i2. 47 2*07 

xxiii. 43..... 616 

xxiii. 46 337. 617 

xxiv 73. 55 

xxiv. 39 617 

xxiv. 40. 47 417. 432 

xxiv. 47 044 

>2 536 



JOHV. 



i. 1-14 


263 -X >1 331 336 


i. 1-18 

i. 6 


323.324 

271 


i. 7-9 


3-->4 


i. 11 


-x»Q 997 


i.12. 13 

i. 14 





i. 15. 30 





i. 15 


277 °91 32l 


i. 26-33 


' 725 


: _ 


415.443.450,519 

710 


i. 32-3-1 


304 


i. 41 





i. 45. 47 




i. 45-49 




296-299 


ii.18 


45 


ii. 19 


309 


ii. 24. 25.... 


3-->9 


iii.l 


84 


iii. 3-8 


: 


iii. 5 

iii. 5. 6 

iii. 6 

: . @ 




360, 399. 477 

301.4(4.405.533 

399 


iii. 13 

iii. 16... 258 
iii. 16. 17.... 

iii.l- 

iii. 19 


239.306.326 

313. 314. 351. 439. 497. 734 

519-523. 529.530 




iii. 22-30.... 




7 


iii. 31 


2 


iii. 33 





iii. 35 





iii. 36 


416.424,520,557 


n - x > - 

iv. 12 


493 


iv. 21 24.... 


622 


iv. 24 

iv. 46-53 .... 


152. 194. 220. 223, 633. 641 
713 


v.1-15 

v. 17-28 

v. 17-38 

v. 23 


652 

299, 300. Z ' 

304:313.314 

342. 343 


~_ 


277 


—17 


■ s 




696 




T -Li) 


521. 594 


v. 47 


618 




732. 733 


vi. 19 


74 


- 

vi. 31 : -" ... 


459,495 


vi. S3. 51.... 




269 


vi. 37-45 


? 


vi. 4°-62.„. 


271 


vi 46 


277 




450 


vi. 53 


475 




314 


vi 63 .. 




vi 64 




26. 330 




1 i 


vii. 22 





vii 22 23 








516 




564 


viii 44 




viii. 56-59 .. 
ix : ' 7 




271 


47 


ix 33 




ix So 3- ... 




336 


x 4. 16 


523 


x. 5. 2 
x 15 






41 


x. 17. 15.... 
x. 2--S9 






2 


x 30 




x 34 




290 




84 




456 






xi 50 




419 


xu 10-19 .. 




xii '"'S °4.. 





xii. S7^0... 
xii. 41 









INDEX OF TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE. 



'41 



xiii. 11 330 

xiii. 18 564 

xiv. 9 310 

xiv. 16, 17 510 

xiv. 16, 17, 26 311 

xiv. 23 329 

xiv. 26 354, 360 

xiv. 28 352 

xv. 16, 19 564, 565 

xv. 19 522. 549, 553, 554 

xv. 26 311, 353, 354, 359, 360, 563 

xvi. 7, 8 335, 360, 407, 477 

xvi. 8-13 557 

xvi. 13 358, 359, 622 

xvi. 15 , 330 

xvi. 23 496 

xvi. 30 291 

xvii. 3 255 

xvii. 5 259, 273 

xvii. 6. 12 565 

xvii. 9-21 523 

xvii. 11 329 

xvii. 16 522 

xviii. 11 488 

xviii. 20 70 

xviii. 36 680 

xviii. 37 564 

xix. 7 308 

xix. 26, 27 668 

xx 73, 88 

xx. 19, 26 645 

xx. 22 353 

xx. 22, 23 697 

xx. 28 292, 323 

xx. 31 323, 520, 529 

ACTS. 

i. 4, 5, 8 710, 725 

i. 7 328 

i. 24 336 

ii 77, 85, 90 

ii. 1-4, 16-18, 33 725 

ii. 11 543 

ii. 17, 18, 38 710 

ii. 30 301 

ii. 33 335 

ii. 38 357, 703 

ii. 38, 39 714 

ii. 39 557 

ii. 41 70, 722, 723 

iii. 12-18 90 

iii. 15 349 

iii. 16 335 

iii. 26 301 

iv 89, 90 

iv. 4 70 

iv. 13 316 

iv. 21 89 

v. 3. 4 359 

v. 21-40 89, 90 

v. 28 88 

v. 31 414, 633 

vi. 2-6 690 

vii. 30-38 275, 282 

vii. 35 428 

vii. 37 301 

vii. 38 449 

vii. 43 288 

vii. 51 407, 477, 563, 570, 610 

vii. 52 72 

vii. 55-60 337. 616, 619 

vii. 59 '. 261 

viii. 22 594 

viii. 29 358 

viii. 37 709 

viii. 38, 39 720 

ix. 11 634 

ix. 14 338 

ix. 15 532 

ix. 18 727 

x 74 

x. 2 718 

x. 12 117 

x. 25, 26 342 

x. 34 552,553 

x. 35 ;,:;:; 

x. 30 287 

x. 88 358 

x. II 690 

x. 43 420,475,529 



x. 44-48 711, 725, 727 

xi. 15, 16 725 

xi. 18 706 

xi. 23 404 

xii. 5 633 

xiii. 7, 12 74 

xiii. 8-11 93 

xiii. 14, 15, 27.... 80 

xiii. 15 683 

xiii. 22 129 

xiii. 32-35 301 

xiii. 38, 39 432, 478 

xiii. 48 566, 585 

xiv. 11 289 

xiv. 11-18 342 

xiv. 15 336 

xiv. 17 476 

xiv. 23 690 

xv. 1-31 694, 705 

xv. 2 566 

xv. 18 210, 585 

xv. 21 484, 640 

xv. 28 358 

xvi. 3 706, 711, 712 

xvi. 9, 10 542 

xvi. 14, 15.... 639. 672, 718-720, 723, 727 

xvi. 15,16 711 

xvi. 16-18 93 

xvi. 30, 31 497 

xvi. 33, 34.... 639, 672. 718-720, 722, 727 

xvi. 40 719 

xvii. 18 620 

xvii. 26 566 

xvii. 27, 28 207, 212, 252 

xvii. 29 365 

xvii. 30 416 

xvii. 31 250, 608 

xviii. 4-10 572 

xix. 1-5 357, 358 

xix. 1-7 725 

xx. 7 645 

xx. 17, 28 682 

xx. 21 497, 528, 735 

xx. 28 259, 306, 348, 435 

xxi. 13 441 

xxii. 10 566 

xxiii. 1 709 

xxiii. 5 675 

xxiii. 8 617 

xxvi. 18 526 

xxvi. 19 608, 610 

xxvi. 26 84 

xxvii. 23 629 

xxviii. 23 566 

xxviii. 25-27 266, 356, 568 

ROMANS. 

i. 3, 4 299, 308, 349 

i. 5, 6 557 

i. 7 340, 510 

i. 16 526 

i. 17 487 

i. 18 424 

i. 18-32 39 

i. 20 29, 157, 201 

i. 21-25 342 

i. 28 609 

ii. 2 4S0 

ii. 4 476, 551 

ii. 4, 5 541 

ii. 5 410, 423 

ii. 11 249, 553 

ii. 13, 14 24S 

ii. 14 533 

ii. 14-16 601 

ii. 28, 29 533, 543, 517. 710 

iii. 6 618 

iii. 9 3S4, 491 

iii. 9, 19 542 

iii. 9-26 400 

iii. 10-12 898 

iii. 19 248,408,491. 684 

iii. L'9, 20 488 

iii. 21,22 4S7 

iii. 2:i 551 

iii. 24 427,430,431,497 

iii. 21,25 488 

iii. 24-20 433,437,4 10,478 

iii. 25... 260, 422, 423, 481, 483, 484, 196, 
500. 



iii. 27 479, 495 

iii. 31 623. 624. 646 

iv 489-495 

iv. 3, 9. 11 457, 704 

iv. 5 479, 497, 498, 500 

iv. 5-8 478, 490-495, 506 

iv.ll 714,717 

iv. 16 495 

iv. 25 420, 709 

v. 1 416, 495. 509, 513, 514, 516, 522 

v. 2 513 

v. 6-8 , 416, 419, 444 

v. 9 418, 426. 450, 488 

v. 10, 11 314. 424-427, 450. 513, 515 

v. 12-21 243. '372, 384, 385,386, 388, 

390, 391, 392, 393, 402, 408, 581- 

584. 

v. 15, 16 526, 603 

v. 17 526 

v. 18 520-522, 551, 552, 603 

v. 18, 19 488,494,526 

v. 19 483,490,522 

v. 20 550 

vi 499-502 

vi. 1-11 012, 613, 614, 711, 727-729 

vi. 2 435 

vi. 14, 22 509 

vi. 18, 22 428 

vi. 23 385, 413, 508, 580, 581. 584 

vii 499-502, 510. 612 

vii. 7 646 

vii. 12 247, 363, 409, 439 

vii. 13 259 

vii. 18 527 

vii. 18, 25 , 399 

vii. 24. 396 

viii 499-502 

viii. 1 399, 480, 510, 515, 556, 680 

viii. 3, 4 310, 435, 614 

viii. 5-9 399 

viii. 5, 9 514, 526, 711 

viii. 7 425; 527, 630 

viii. 9 354 

viii. 11 309, 359 

viii. 13 597. 014 

viii. 14 477, 711 

viii. 14-16... 359, 360. 385. 510-518, 632 

viii. 17 509, 510,' 513, 516, 518 

viii. 17-30 558-562 

viii. 26, 27 358, 360 

viii. 28 507, 615 

viii. 31 205 

viii. 32 314, 423. 434, 618 

viii. 33, 34 479. 507 

ix 534. 573-575 

ix. 5 295 

ix. 11-13 585 

ix. 18 586 

ix. 24 558 

ix. 20 607 

ix. 30 494 

x 534 



x. 1, 
x. 3. 

x. 4. 
x. 5. 



53S 
487 
494 
433 
270 

12 238 

13 287,888 

618 
533 
534 
560 

500 
715 
682 

425 



x. 14-17 547.54S 

x.19 

xi 

xi.1-5 

xi. 5, 7 

xi.6 

xi. 16-24 

xi. 20 030 

xi. 2S 

xi 33 152 

xi. 35 



xi. 30. 
xii. 1.. 
xii. 8.. 



xii. 10. 

xii. 12 

xii. 17. 

xii. 19 



xiii. 1-7 566, 01,0.002. 

xiii. 9 

xiii. 10 3< J. 

xiii. 14 



292 

473 

('■Ml 

sea 

670 

690 
363 



742 



INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 



xiv. 

XV. 
XV. 
XV. 
XV. 
XV. 

xvi. 
xvi. 
xvi. 
xvi. 
xvi. 
xvi. 



520, 



9 

13 

30. 31 . 

5. 

7 

15 

20 , 

24 

26 



556, 
548. 



1 CORINTHIANS. 



i. 1 

i. 2 

i. 4 

i. 10 

i. 13 

i. 14-16. 



338, 558 

420 

681 

357 

i2, 718-720 



v. 18-21 425-427 iv. 8. 

v. 19 152, 476, 484, 489, 520, 522 j iv. 11, 12 . 

v. 20 420. 516 

v. 21 421. 451. 483, 484. 487 

vi. 8 83 1 

vi. 16-18 510, 513, 516 

vii. 1 611, 613 I 

vii. 4 420 | 

viii. 7. 9, 12 655 j 

viii. 12 544 

ix. 2 420 

ix. 7, 8 655 ' 

xi. 3 372 I 

xii. 2-4 617 

xii. 5, 10 420 

xii. 7-9 337 

xii. 8, 9 633 

xii. 14 670 

xiii. 14 265, 266, 341, 356, 510 



iv. 22-24 366, 399, 

iv. 25 

iv.26 ". 

iv. 30 359, 407, 517, 570, 

v. 2 443, 

v. 5,16 



i. 21, 22 34. 518 

i. 24 558 

i. 30 480, 487 

ii. 2 329 

ii. 4 358 

ii. 8 259, 296, 306, 349, 435 

ii. 10-12 354, 359,360. 3S5 

iii. 3 399 

iii. 6 477, 670 

iii. 19 73 

iv. 4 615 

iv. 7 569-572 

iv. 11. 13 80 I 

v. 1, 3 326 ; 

v. 5 698 I 

v. 7 443.454 

v. 7, 11, 13 681,689.691 ; 

v. 12 .'498 I 

vi. 19, 20 359,428,629 j 

vii. 2 665 

vii. 14 548,715 I 

vii. 18 558 j 

vii. 19-23 657 ! 

vii. 22 502 ! 

vii. 26 664 

viii. 4 73,191,256 

viii. 5 32 j 

viii. 6 313 ' 

viii. 11 520.523.550 

ix. 20 707 I 

ix. 27 532,550,610 ' 

x. 2 : 104. 724 

x. 3, 4. 11 448. 449, 462 , 

x. 9 2S2 ' 

x.ll 104 I 

x. 16 713.732 

xi 640.642 j 

xi. 26 730,734. 735 I 

xi. 27, 29 734 

xii.. xiii., xiv., xv 78 ' 

xii. 8-11 350 

xiii. 5 654 

xiv. 30 695 

xv. 3 420 

xv. 10 572 i 

xv. 22 372, 384, 388, 390, 520 

xv. 35-54... 617-319 

xv. 45 391 ( 

xv. 49 384 ! 

xvi. 1 688 

xvi. 2 645. 661 

xvi. 14 644 

xvi. 15 566, 699 

xvi. 15-17 719 . 

xvi. 19 548, 699, 672 



GALATIANS. 



i.16 

i. 22 .... 

ii. 16.'".'.'.'.'.'.'".'.'.' ".'.'.'.'.'.'.' '439, 491,' 497 - , 

ii. 20 505. 

ii. 21 482. 

iii. 6-9 492-494, 503, 

iii. 10 

iii. 12 

iii. 13, 14 104. 404. 422. 

iii. 16 .' 

iii. 19 284, 

iii. 21 

iii. 26 

iii. 27-29 

iii. 29 

iv.4 



420 
557 
610 
688 
706 
513 

4:4 

704 

445 
445 
42 S 
70S 
706 
494 
509 
708 
513 
346 



v. 19 

v. 20 

v. 22-33. 

v. 32 

vi. 1-3... 

vi. 2 

vi. 4 

vi. 5-9... 



281 

681, 688, 692 

' 014 

38 

222 

610 

451 

661 

420 

G44 

420 

666. 668 



640, 



700 

667-669 



PHILIPPIANS. 



671, 



623 
670 
672 



i. 1 682 

i.19 354 

i. 21-24 „ 616. 617 

i. 29 



344, 



I ii. 8 



269,481, 

10 338, 

12, 13 131, 404. 571, 572, 



I 111. d... 
! iii. 9... 
I iii. 19. 



20,21 507, 617 

4 



iv. 4-6 354. 355, 511-518 

iv. 8 342 

iv. 10, 20 706 

iv. 22-31 547 

iv. 29 556 

v. 2-4 705, 706, 711 

v. 6 705 

v. 13 557 

v. 18 514. 515 

v. 22, 23 477. 502. 512-517 

v. 24 515. 614 

v. 25 501, 502 

vi. 1 681 

vi. 10 655, 681 

vi. 14 73 

vi. 15 517 

vi. 16 543, 544 



COLOSSIANS. 



13 508. 

14 350, 

14-18 332. 350, 416, 418, 

16,17 .' 152.205. 

17 

19-22 

21 

23 

24 

28 

29 



10-12 707. 

16,17 44.8,449: 



EPHESIANS. 

i.3 

i. 4 

i. 4-6 555, 

i. 7 416. 418, 423. 428, 432, 450, 

i. 8 . 

i.9 

i. 9-13 555, 

i. 11 

i. 13, 14 517,518. 

i. 16 233; 

i. 18 

i.21 

i.23 

ii. 1 387, 390, 404. 528, 



4.5. 

4,7. 



2 CORINTHIANS. 



513. 616. 



13 

14 

14. 15 
17 



419, 

404. 501. 



296 
359 
710 
359 
610 
289 
617 
608 
619 
260 
521 
510 



S. 9 439,495,497 

10 501,508 

14 486 

14-16 425 

16 

i. 4-G, 11 



,10.. 
11... 
14.. 
20.. 
1.4. 
6.... 



296 
548 
560 
453 
232 
700 
556 
608 
702 
420 
526 
333 
251 
609 
439 
152 
629 
233 
585 
509 
507 
426 
556 
565 
532 
140 
599 
338 
233 
55S 
296 



ii. 22. 
iii. 2... 
iii. 4... 
iii. 10. 



12 


16 


fUO. 


20 


21 


22-25 - 


1. 2 


639. 671. 


16 



1 THESSALONIANS. 



5-10. 
10.... 



557. 



585 
349 
273 
488 
348 
610 
710 
4v7 
289 
619 
513 
661 
633 
637 
451 



302 
516 
506 
435 
327 
46 
424 
522 
292 
716 
699 
404 
349 
72$ 
645 
695 
637 



705 
548 
644 
668 
670 
671 
672 
640 



7J 

424 
7S 
699 
55S 
251 
507 
507 
251 



10 

12. 13. 



17,18 

19 359,407,570,604 



23 510,611, 

27 78. 



681, 692 

633 

637 

610 
696 

613 

C40 



INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 



743 



2 THESSALONIANS. 



i. 6. 
i. 7, 
i. 9. 



410 
520 
424 



ii. 3 214 

ii. 8, 9 93,292 

ii. 13, 14 558 

ii. 13-15 554 

ii. 16, 17 338 

iii. 6 681 

1 TIMOTHY. 

i. 1 292 

i. 10 656 

i. 17 152, 195, 229 

i. 19 561 

ii. 1-3 633 

ii. 1-4... 521, 530, 531, 549, 574, 602, 675 

ii. 5 393 

ii. 6 419, 428 

ii. 12-14 372 

iii. 1-7 691, 692 

iii. 4 719 

iii. 5 618 

iii. 16 417, 434 

iv. 2, 3 694 

iv. 10 506, 519, 521, 523 

iv. 14 683, 691 

v. 17 683, 689, 692 

v. 20 692 

v. 21 587 

v. 22 735 

vi. 1 671 

vi. 3-5 694 

vi. 6, 11 629 

vi. 9, 10 661 

vi. 14 292 

vi. 14, 15 328 

vi. 16 195, 201 

2 TIMOTHY. 

i. 6 683 

i. 9-11 , 558, 565 

i. 10 292, 384, 477 

i. 12 506 

ii. 2 681 

ii. 10 441 

ii. 13 251 

ii. 18-20 564 

ii. 26 428 

iii. 15 669 

iii. 16 

iii. 17 

iv. 1, 8 

iv. 18 

iv. 22 



256, 640 



292 
340 
338 



TITUS. 

i. 5, 7 682 

i. 5-9 646, 691,692 

i. 10, 11 694 

i. 13 681 

ii. 11 550, 595 

ii. 12 396 

ii. 13 292, 296 

ii. 14 416 

iii. 5 431.710 

iii. 5, 6 360,710, 725 

iii. 7 509, 548 

iii. 10 681 



HEBREWS. 



1 

1-3. 
2.... 
3.... 

4,5. 



309, 332, 
283, 



152, 254, 344, 349, 443, 627 
300 

see 

205 

248 

296 
884 
284 
618 
527 
860 



8, 9 293, 

10-12 287, 293, 320, 

2,3 

3 520, 

4 

7, 17 829, 



ii. 9 419, 519, 521, 572 

ii. 10 292, 350, 418 

ii. 14 269, 312, 347, 350 

ii. 14, 15 615 

ii. 15 384 

iii. 1-6 310 

iii. 7-11 477 

iii. 14 506 

iv. 1 632 

iv. 3 291 

iv. 9 645 

iv. 12, 13 327 

iv. 13 152, 477 

iv. 15, 16 350 

v. 9 350, 469 

vi. 4-8 520, 525, 534, 561, 604, 605 

vi. 10 249, 656 

vi. n ^ 511 

vi. 18 243,251 

vii. 26 442 

vii. 27 452 

viii. 3 443 

viii. 5 450 

viii. 9-13 516, 546, 548, 715, 717 

ix 449, 450, 451, 452, 455 

ix. 5 423 

ix. 7-9 462 

ix. 9 452, 454 

ix. 10 724 

ix. 12 443 

ix. 12, 15 „ 508 

ix. 13, 14 359, 452 

ix. 14, 23 435 

ix. 22.... 27, 350, 423, 432, 447, 455, 475, 
482. 

ix. 23-26 104 

ix. 26 443 

ix. 28 416, 420, 421 

622 
259 



x. 1 104, 449 

x. 4 

x. 5...... 

x. 5, 9,10 



351 
4S8 
453 
420 
453 
450 
511 
251 
(540 



x. 10 
x. 12.... 
x. 19-22 

x. 20 

x. 22 

x. 23 

x> 25 

x. '26-31 520, 525, 534, 561 

x. 29 359, 360, 520, 570, 610 

x. 31 409 

x. 35 468, 469 

x. 38, 39.... 534, 550, 561 

xi 459-470, 494, 496 

xi. 2 708 

xi. 3 143, 291, 332 

xi. 4 456 

xi. 6 458 

xi. 7 147, 708 

xi. 8 506 

xi. 26 2S2 

xi. 27 631 

xi. 33 631 

xii. 9 330,365,195 

xii. 9, 10 32, 704 

xii. 14 131 

xii. 24 423 

xii. 25, 26 282 

xii. 28, 29 424, 632 

xiii. 5 656 

xiii. 7, 17 692, 699 

xiii. 8 273, 325 

xiii. 11, 12 453 

xiii. 12 443 

xiii. 16 666 

xiii. 20, 21 613, 711, 734 



JAMES. 

1.6 

i. 13 

i. 15 

i. 17 53,152,225, 

i.2l 

ii.10 

ii. 14-26 60S 



033, 



1 PETER. 



i.1,2. 
i. 2.... 



548, 



i. 10, 11 

i. 11 281,335,354, 

i. 15 

i. 17 

i. 18, 19 428,435, 

ii. 3 

ii. 4, 9 

ii. 9 556, 

ii. 13, 14 675, 

ii. 21 

ii. 22 

ii. 24 

iii. 12 

iii. 18-20.... 281, 355, 416, 419, 420, - 
450, 454, 477, 610. 

iii. 20-22 : 708, 

iii. 21 

iv.2 

iv.14 

v. 1-4 682, 692, 

v.5 

v.10 

v. 13 



549 
554 
296 
509 
462 
355 
670 
632 
481 
526 
548 
710 
676 
419 
442 
420 
212 



700 
512 



2 PETER. 



i. 9 








561 


i. 10 








K3A: 5Rfi 


i. 21 






113, 355, 359 
, 520, 521, 524 
5fi9 


ii. 1 

ii. 1-3 


.. 259, 351 


428 


ii. 4 








205, 363 


ii. 5 








.. 22, 477 


ii. 10 








675 


ii. 14 








422 


ii. 21 








550 


iii. 9 






531 


, 541, 551 


iii. 11 






670 


iii. 14 








... 612 


iii. 15 








524 


iii. 18 








340 


i. 2 


1 JOHN. 




326 


i. 5 








.... 251 


i. 9 








249, 434 
479 636 


ii. 1 








ii. 2 


422 


423 


, 4:55 
385 


, 519, 522 
409, 580 


iii. 8 






381, 467 


iii. 9 








509 


iii. 12 








363, 458 


iii. 14 








387 


iii. 16 

iii. 17 






2 HO 


440, 658 
618 


iii. 20 








615 


iv. 2,3 








269 


iv. 3 








... 346 


iv. 8, 16.... 








550 


iv. 9 








209 


iv. 9, 10... 








314 


iv. 10 








422 


iv. 14 








.. 519 


iv. 18 








031. iV.V2 


iv. 20 








618 


v. 6 








.... 517 


v. 7 








... 200 


v. 11 








162 


v. 14 








816 


v. 19 








5J-J 


v. 19, 20.... 
1 


294, 

2 JOHN. 


200, 


347, 399 
682 


10 








689 


3 


JUDH. 




FOB, 707 


4 








561, 50.0 


II, 16.... 

21 


120, 


463, 


to;.. 


012 



744 



INDEX OP GREEK TERMS. 



REVELATION. 

i. 4 688 

i. 4-6 204, 325, 340, 356, 416 

i. 8, 17, 18 325, 330 

i. 10.. 624, 645 

i. 11, 17 201 

i. 17 338 

i. 20 ~ 699 

ii. 1 688 

ii. 7 372 

ii. 10 . 561 



ii. 23 


328, 336 


iv. 8 


266 


iv. 11 


„ 46, 361 


v. 6 


475 


v. 9 


428 


v. 13 


261, 340 


xii. 9 


372, 381 




454, 464, 475, 476 


xiv. 13 


615 




248 




410 


xix. 8 


4Sfi 





xix. 10 342 

xix. 13 724 

xix. 16 287, 296 

xx. 2 381 

xx. 12 507 

xx. 12, 13 205 

xxi. 3 704 

xxii. 2, 14 372 

xxii. 15 38 

xxii. 17 .-. 358, 407, 521 

xxii. 19 567 

xxii. 20 303 



INDEX OF GREEK TERMS. 



'kyia 453 

"Ayidfa 444 

"Ayvlfa 444 

'AyopdcavTa 428 

'Ayog , 444 

Aldv 331 

'Afiaprca 451 

'Avd 421 

'Avafepo .... 420 

'Avrc 419 

'Avtltvtvov 708 

'Anoiva 429 

'ATTOKara?^^ t£> Qe& 426 

'ATroKaraTiTidacjc) 425 

'ATToTiVTpuGcg 428 

Apxn 324 

'Afiijpi 432 

BaTTTifo 724 

Bd-nrTicfia 724 

BcnrTLOfzog 724 

BaTrrw 724 



Yivojiai , 



291, 348 



Arj/iiovpyog 156 

Atd 292, 331, 420, 432, 728 

LiaKpiTLKT] 696 

AiaraKTCKrj 695 

Ainaiog 433, 440 

Ai/caioavvT} 433, 440, 494 

AiKalo/ia 494 

AiKaiuaig 494 

AtoUrjaig 684 

AoyjuariK?} 694 

AovTida 342 

Aovlog 345 

Aupedv 431 

Ekwv 332 

Elf 522, 726 

'E/c . 726 

'EndTj/uovvTEg e/c tov aQfiarog. 616 



^(.mpoadev 269 

'Ev 725 

"Evde&v 433 

"EvSrj/LcovvTEg ev ru> c&jiaTi.. 616 

'Et-tXdoicofiai 445 

'Em 724 

'EKepuTTjfta 709 

'EnL(j)dveia 292 

'Etugkottoi 692 

"Era^av.. 720 

Evdoicr/aa 305 

EvloyTjrog .*.. 296 

'Hyopacag 428 

'HyopdadrjTe 428 

'Hyov/xevoi •. 692 

"Hveyne 421 

Qeoloyia 348 

9 £ 6f.... 291 

Qvoiag 471 

'law 65 

'YkdoKu 422, 444 

'Viacpog 422, 450 

'HaoTtjpiov 423 

'lov 201 

y laa Qey 346 

Kadaipu 444 

Katpolg idiots 328 

KaraTilayij 425, 427 

Kara/l/laoYTCJ 425 

KaraTiXdrTecv 427 

Kardpa 422 

K2,rjpovo/Liea> 309 

Koivovelv 732 

KrccFfia Kriajuarog 354 

Kvpiog 202, 286 

Aarpela 342 

Avrpa 429 

Avrpov 428 



Avrpou 428 

AvTporrjg 428, 429 

M.etex elv 732 

MovoyevTjg 305 

M.op<f>Tj Qeov 344 

M.VOT7]pt,OV 699 

Oldev 329 

Oinovofua 348 

'O/toovoiog 255 

"Ore 559, 561 

"Ofa 372 

Uapa(3o7iTJ 450 

UdpEoig 433 

Uapoiniat 684 

Ilspi 420 

WiEiova tivatav.... 456, 457 

UvEv/ia 353, 359 

HvEvfia vlodsaiag 518 

UpOEGTUTEg 692 

lipoGKaprEpovvTEg 633 

UpOCKVVElV 335 

TLug 618 

2/ua 449 

^TTEpjua 714 

IjTEpEUfia 144 

HufiarLKug 349 

Tajuulov 637 

Tekvo. 714, 715 

TErpaypdfifiarov 286 

Tvtcoi 448 

'Tttep 419 

'TirodEty/ua 450 

'Tuoaractg 254 

'Y7COTdGC7j(jdE 720 

XapaKTT/p 309 

XELpOTOVElV 960 

XEipOTOVTjGaVTEQ 690 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

Aaron's sin 222 

Abel, nature of his faith 457 

personal righteousness of. 458 

revelation given to 459 

sacrifice of, expiatory 456-475 

Aben-Ezra on the name Jehovah 285 

Abernethy, Rev. J., on the unity of God 194 

on the eternity of God 202 

on the simplicity of the Divine processes ! 230 

on the holiness of God 247 

Abijah, the name explained 285 

Abimelech, character of 22 

Abir, Abirim 264 

Abraham, promise made to 114 

revelation given to 459 

faith of 459,470,503,506 

faith of, imputed for righteousness 489 

justification of 503 

covenant made with 534 

conducted family worship 638 

his offering of Isaac 704 

Absence from the body 616 

Absorption, a doctrine of the Hindoos 33 

Abyssinia, origin of its religion 23 

Acquittal, none in the last day 503 

Action, revelation by 11 

Actions ascribed to God 151 

Actions, moral, rule of..... 11 

Active and passive righteousness of Christ 483 

Active justification 494 

Active righteousness of Christ, imputation of. 438-490 

Acts, Divine, not fixed by absolute decrees 599 

Acts of Christ not imputed to us 438 

Acts of Christ show his Divinity 330 

Acts of piety 632 

Acts of the Apostles, omitted in the catalogue of Epi- 

phanius ,. 79 

Acts of the Holy Spirit 354 

Actual things, how known to God 228 

Adam, sinning posterity of, would have died had he 

not sinned 250 

original state of 363 

fell suddenly 379 

relation of, to his descendants 388 

and his posterity, not one moral person 389, 580 

sin of, how imputed to his posterity 389, 488, 581 

likeness of..... 396 

— — and Eve would have had no posterity but for re- 
demption 408, 581-583 

■ a teacher of religion and morals 464, 405 

did not institute sacrifices 475 

why he fell 574-576 

his fall not predetermined 599 

Adon, nrurie of God 150 

Adonai, why substituted for the name Jehovah 286 

Adonim 264 

Adonis, garden of. :>7"> 

Adoration of the host 732 

Adoption described 510 

a concomitant of justification 610 

witness of. 510 

(See Witness of the. Spirit.) 

Adrian refers to Christ 72 

Adultery, ancient laws against 37 

prevalence of, among the heathen .".7 

forbidden in Scripture 666 

Adversity of the righteous accounted for 260 

Advocate, Christ our 47Q 

JYaiow, John's baptisms in 720 



PAGE 

^on of the Gnostics 322 

Affections subject to the will of God 629 

Afflictions, punitive 408 

■ penal character of, changed by justification 506 

Affusion in baptism - 723 

Africa, devil-worship in 94 

African Synod, decision of, on infant baptism 721 

Agency, free moral 9, 376, 635 

compatible with the Spirit's influence 127 

Divine, postulates the Trinity 261 

Aggressions on others' rights forbidden 654 

of government, how to be resisted 676—679 

Agreement of the sacred writers 128 

Agriculture indicates the fall of man 241 

Ahaz, prophecy to 114 

Ahithophel, a type of Judas 564 

Alaith 637 

Aleim 150, 264, 290 

Alexander of Pontus, pretended miracles of. 97 

Allegiance, civil 676-679 

Allegories, key to 5S 

Allegory, account of the fall not an 104, 370 

Allen, John, on marriage among the modern Jews 666 

Allix, Dr., on the term wisdom 302 

on Philo's Logos 320 

All men, meaning of the phrase 521 

All-sufficiency of God 252 

Ambition the ground of aberrations of wives 667 

Ambrose on infant baptism 721 

American traditions of the creation 26 

Ammonites, how punished by David 137 

Amory, Rev. Thomas, on omnipresence of God. 20S, 209, 210 

Amphilochius on the canon of Scripture 79 

Anvyraldus, a sublapsarian 577 

theology of. 589, 594, 595 

Anabaptists, rise of. 721 

Analogical and figurative language 453 

Analogy of God to man 221 

Anderson, Rev. C, on family prayer C37, 63S 

Andrews, Bishop, on the witness of the Spirit f>17 

Angel of the Church Q83 

Angel of the Lord, Jehovah 274 

Priestley on 205 

Angels, perfection of 208 

not included in the plural name of God $164 

delivered the judicial law 284 

sometimes termed suns of God 305 

worship Christ 338 

moral beings 362 

fallen 381 

Carvihistic view of elect and reprobate 587 

and spirits, distinction between 617 

Anger of Cod 4'J; 1 .. 4J4 

lawful and unlawful 656, • 

Animal life 197. 234 

food 4;.;.. 474 

sacrifices lei- !7"> 

Animals, number of species of l W 

extinct species of 1 17 

analogy of. proves the unity of God 193 

evince the wisdom of GptJ 230 

why they devour one another 29 I 

have no fear of death 

happiness o( 236 

usefulness of nOXiOUS 

immateriality of 

limited powers of 

clean and on. lean 

not to be wantonlv slain 174 

(746) 



746 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



Annihilation, not the penalty of death 3S6 

of infants, why taught by some Calvinists 552 

of the soul at death, opposed 615-617 

Anselm. Archbishop, on imputation of faith 493 

Antediluvians, peculiar sins of 22 

Anthropomorphites. Jews never 221 

Anthropomorphism and anthropopathy, King on.. 218, 222 

Anthropopathy, scriptural 222 

Antinomianism, a gross corruption 645, 646 

Antinomians on the atonement 438 i 

deny conditions of pardon 439 

on eternal justification 479 ; 

on imputed righteousness 483,492 , 

on predestination 578 ' 

Antioch, Synod of, on Christ, the Angel 283 j 

Antipedobaptists, rise of 721 I 

Antiquity of Scripture 63, 132 | 

Antitype of Xoah's building the ark, baptism an 710 j 

Antitypes of the law 450 j 

Apollinarius, tenets of 347 

Apollonius on Moses 65 , 

Apollonius, pretended miracles of. 97 j 

Apostasy of true believers possible 520, 525, 632 | 

Apostates, Hebrew 520, 525,561 j 

A posteriori proofs of God's existence 157,160,190 j 

Apostles, character of the 83 j 

election of. 532 ; 

temporary office of. 681 

called elders 682 

power of, to bind and loose 697 

Apostolical succession 685 

Appetencies, theory of 1S6 

Appetite, Eve fell by 244 

Appetites irregular 406 

Application of general precepts 626 

Appointment or dispensation 363 

A priori proofs of God's existence, unsatisfactory and 

mischievous '. 187 

proofs of God's attributes 188,210 

Apuleius refers to Christ 72 

Aquinas, Thomas, on predestination 578 

on the mode of baptism 723 

Arabians not excluded from God's mercy 543 

Arabic rendering of Isa. vi. 10 568 

Arama, Isaac Ben, on sacrifices 448 

Arbitrary precepts different from positive precepts 380 

election considered 555 

governments may be resisted 676 

Archbishops, origin of 6S4 

Archetypes of things in God 229, 230 

Architas Tarentinus's dove 174 

Arianism, a scheme of infidelity 361 

Arians worship Christ 341 

not supported by the fathers 352 

condemned by the Council of 2sice 694 

Arian view of Christ 258, 352 

of the Angel of the Lord 275 

of the Logos 324 

of Col. i. 15 332 

of the sufferings and death of Christ 351, 416 

of the Spirit 354 

of pardon 434 

Aristeas, pretended miracles of. 97 

Aristotle, his opinion on creation 18 

on providence 32 

on immortality 34 

on meekness 37 

on the word "consist." 327 

Arius, doctrines of 352 

Ark, dimensions of the 146 

Xoah's building the. typical of baptism 710 ' 

Ark of the testimony a type of Christ 423 | 

Arminians, some believe the Scientia Media 213 

some deny prescience of contingent events 213 j 

misrepresented on the Fall 384 j 

some erred on original sin 402 j 

general views of, on original sin 403 ! 

some agree with Calvin on imputed righteousness. 483 j 

some differ from Calvin on imputed righteousness. 485 ' 

on the Protestant confessions 589 : 

Anninius. James, D.D., on the origin of evil 243 ' 

on the fall of man 385 ' 

on privation of original righteousness 403 | 

on imputed righteousness 4S0, 4S4 

not the author of thedoctrineof imputation of faith 492 | 

on theories of predestination 578-680 

Arms, structure of the 181 

Arteries, anatomy of the 181 

Articles of religion, use of. 694 

Articles, Thirty-nine, English and Latin 386 



PAGB 

Artificial distinctions forbidden 654 

Art of nature 168 

Asconius on the term satisfaction 436 

Ashantee, human sacrifices in 38 

Asia, the original home of man 20 

Aspersion practiced in primitive baptisms 723 

baptism of the Holy Ghost by 725 

Assent and trust in justifying faith 496 

Assurance, remarks on the term 511 

(See Adoption and Witness of the Spirit.) 

Ass, why Christ rode on an 279 

Astronomy, objections from, to Scripture, answered. 139, 141 

Athanasian view of the Trinity 255, 268 

creed, on the person of Christ ' 347 

creed, on the procession of the Spirit 353 

Athanasius, on the canon of Scripture 78 

Atheism of the religion of Budhu 18 

dissocializing influence of 155 

theories of, ancient and modern 186 

should not be tolerated 663 

Atheists alone can deny miracles 46 

none in early ages 153 

refutation of 163, 175 

folly of 1S5 

credulity of „ 1S7 

Athens, slavery at 36 

Atomic theory 16S, 186 

Atonement, doctrine of 120 

foundation of 120 

objections to noticed 120, 423 

effects of, on man 122 

exhibits the character of God 124 

illustrated 125 

depends on the divinity of Christ 259 

manifests the mercy and justice of God 433 

establishes the law 434, 442 

wisdom and fitness of 436 

depends on the favor of the Lawgiver „. 439 

harmony of God's attributes in 440 

enhances the guilt of the disobedient 442 

Hebrew and Greek terms denoting 445 

day of 446 

for holy places 452 

importance of 475 

effects of 475 

extent of 519 

— — scriptural proofs of its universality 519 

texts supposed to limit 562 

theories which limit the 572, 593 

need of, by sanctified Christians 614 

benefits of, conditional 631 

Attaka 87 

Attraction, laws of 210 

Attributes of God defined 191 

incommunicable 252 

communicable 252 

of his nature 252 

belong to Christ 325 

Augsburg Confession, on the Fall 386 

on predestination 588, 589 

Augustin on eternal generation 315 

introduced the phrase " original sin." 402 

on imputation of faith 492 

taught that God willed the fall of man 575 

held that the will of God involves the necessity 

of things 576 

on predestination and necessity 578 

on pastors and teachers 682 

on infant baptism 721 

Authentication of revelation 41 

Authenticity and genuineness distinguished 75 

Authority of God in regard to morals 10 

Awakening grace 502 

Babel, effects of the dispersion at 98 

wickedness of the builders of 394 

Babylon, destruction of 109 

the taking of, predicted 214 

Backbone a proof of design in creation 170, 181 

Backsliding. See Apostasy. 

Badges, sacraments are 701 

Bahr-al-Kolsum 87 

Balaam acquainted with true religion 23 

enchantments of. 91 

his personal character 113 

Balguy on the ground of moral obligation 42 

Baptismal covenant shoiild be explained to children ... 670 

Baptismal regeneration, Romish error of. J°3 

Augustin on J°3 

Lutheran and Anglican churches on '03 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



747 



PAGE 

Baptism a memorial 70 

a covenant rite 356 

formula of 356 

in the name of Jesus 357 

Christian, not identical with that of John and 

Jesus before his death 357, 710-712 

of Jewish proselytes 357, 713 

profession in 358 

to be born of water 400,707 

how related to justification 505 

prerequisites to 548 

relation of, to election 553 

parents should bring their children to 670 

of domestics 672 

administrators of 680 

obligatory on all 680, 703 

door of the Church 693, 707 

service of, prescribed by the Church 695 

nature of 703 

Romish, Lutheran, Anglican, Quaker, and Soci- 

nian errors concerning 703 

a federal transaction 704-710 

substitutes circumcision 707-712, 729 

typified by Noah's building the ark 708 

requirement, answer, stipulation, and intention 

of 709,728 

a sign and seal 710, 711 

shows the placability of God 710 

« the symbol of regeneration 710 

the symbol of the effusion of the Holy Ghost. 710, 725 

why it was practiced along with circumcision 711 

• believers subjects of 712 

infants subjects of, five arguments for 712-722 

of families 713 

the apostles' practice of 717 

undue efficacy attributed to 720 

benefits of 721, 722 

mode of 722 

i presumptions against immersion in 722 

— — superstitious appendages to 723 

clinic 723 

meaning of the word 724 

• of the Jews and of John not by immersion 724 

burial in and by 727 

as an emblem 729 

in what it agrees with and differs from the Lord's 

Supper 729 

administered only once 729 

Baptisteries, invention of 722 

Barchocheba 95 

Barclay, John, M.D., his theory of life 198 

Barren fig-tree, emblem of the Jews 541 

Barrow, Isaac, D.D, on the character of God 152 

on the Trinity 268 

on the witness of the Spirit 518 

Baruch iii. 29 cited 270 

Basil, on Christ, the Angel 283 

Basle Confession on predestination 589 

Bates on the wisdom of God 232 

Baths, baptismal 722, 727 

Baxter, Rev. R., on the necessary existence of God 189 

on the Trinity 253 

on imputed righteousness 480-485 

theology of 493,589 

on Sticaccjjua, dtnaloaig, diKatoavvri, 494 

on justifying faith 496 

on Christ's sufferings 590 

on universal redemption 590 

on the consequences of reprobation 591, 592 

restricts the benefits of redemption to the elect. 592-595 

Bayle on Augustin and Jansenius 578 

Beasts, immaterial nature in 200 

probably not immortal 200 

living creatures, seraphim 206 

Bcattie, Dr., on relative importance of mind and matter. 139 

his answer to astronomical objections to the Bible. 140 

on God's care for man 140 

Beausobre on the Sabbath 650 

Bedea, feed Sea crossed at SO 

bi de "ii imputation of faith 492 

Beginning, the, of creation 1 12 

Belgic i hurches, creed of 684, 589 

fjeilarmine mi trust in Christ 508 

Beisham, Thomas, Calm Enquiry of, cited 270, 271, 277 

on the style of the apostles 858 

BelllS, tower of 109 

Belzoni on Egypt 26 

Benediction, forms of 265. 840, 858 

in the communion 7:'>2 

Beneficial tendency of Christianity i;;i 



Benevolence, rule of 12 

may be exercised where there is no sin 238 

Bengel, edition of Greek Testament, by 80 

on Qebg without the article 291 

Benson, George, D.D., on calling on the name of Christ. 338 

on proselyte baptisms 357 

Bentley, Richard, D.D., on freethinking 80 

on the worth of the soul 139 

Berkeley on space 190 

Berosus on the flood 26 

Beza on Rom. i. 4 309 

on John i. 1 324 

on the imputation of faith 493 

on Ex. xxxiii. 19 536 

Bhagavat on the flood 26 

Biban al Molouk, tomb at 26 

Bible. See Scriptures. 

Bible societies originate in charity 654 

Bichat, M., his theory of life 197 

Binding and loosing, power of. 697 

Bingham's Antiquities on baptism 358 

Biot on Egyptian zodiacs 141 

Birket Faraun 87 

Bishops, identical with pastors or presbyters 682 

not an order superior to presbyters 682 

not vested with power to ordain, exclusive of pres- 
byters 682 

when and why distinguished from presbyters 683 

origin of various grades of 684 

unscriptural assumption of diocesan 685 

imaginary succession of diocesan 685 

when they may be lawfully raised above presbyters. 686 

rulers of the Church 692 

Blasphemy, in what sense the Jews charged Christ with. 307 

against the Holy Ghost 359 

Blessing, parental 670 

cup of. 732 

Blood of Christ, efficacy of 350, 435 

price of redemption 428, 453 

value of Christ's 435 

as an atonement 445, 455 

why not allowed for food 455, 472 

Blount's moral character 130 

Boasting excluded by faith 495 

Body, human, shows the wisdom of God 170 

designed for a paradisiacal state 240 

no bar to entire sanctification ! 612 

not the seat of sin 613 

distinct from the soul 617 

resurrection of the 617-621 

spiritual, meaning of 619 

the instrument, not the subject, of retribution .... 621 

Bohemian confession, not Calvinistic 5S9 

Bolingbroke, Lord, on a revelation 11 

on prophecy 110 

his moral character 130 

Bonah, the Restorer..... 233 

Book of life, import of 567 

Booth, Ab., on baptism succeeding circumcision 711 

Boyle on predictions 53 

on final causes, alluded to 167 

Brahmanism IS. 26. 84 

Brain, proof of design in creation 171 

Breath of the Almighty 355 

Britain and Bremen, divines of, in the Synod of Dort.. 589 

Brown, Bishop, on representations of God 221 

Brownrigg, Bishop, on appropriating faith 513 

on the witness of the Spirit M7 

Brown, Thomas, LL. D., on cause and effect 159 

on moral emotions 628 

Bruce.on the passage of the Red Sea 81 

Bi'uis, Peter, the first regular antipedobaptiat teacher.. 7-1 

Bruti, exhibited gladiatorial shows 86 

Brutus and his evil genius IS74 

Bryant on Heathen Mythology 27 

on tin- plagues of Egy i>t 93 

his Philo alluded to..". 820 

Bucer on the imputation of faith 498 

Budhism, abstract of IS. 27 

Buffon on the number o( animals 146 

on organic molecules lSd 

Bull, Bishop, on VKoaraaig 254 

on the Trinity 2;>;., 258, 262, 276 

on 6 Onx; in the vocative 298 

on mini; mv/c 806 

on John K. 84 86 801 

on Rev. i. 4 808, 809 

on the Sonship of Chriel 819 

on the rrlal ions in the Trinity 313 



748 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



PAGK 

Bull, Bishop, reply of, to S. Clarke 352 

on justification 502 

on the witness of the Spirit 512, 514 

Bullinger on the imputation of faith 493 

Bunting, Jabez, D.D., on justification 479 

on justifying faith . 497 

Butler, Bishop, on God's moral government 10 

on the character of God 13 

on the necessity of miracles 45,46 

on the probability of miracles 46 

on the conduct of God 120 

on the original state of man 244 

— r— on sin possible to perfect beings 378 

on sin and repentance 414 

on the ground of moral obligation 430 

Butler's, Dr., eulogy of Socrates censured 212 

Butler's Life of Grotius quoted 577 

Burnet, Bishop, History of his own Times 74 

on the authority of the Church 509 

■ on the sacraments 699 

Burnet, Dr. Thomas, on the eternity of matter 18 

Burnt-offerings, expiatory as well as eucharistic... 451, 471 

Buxtorf, John, jun., on the name Jehovah 263 

his objection to popular argument for the Trinity. 264 

Cassar, Julius, denied a future state 35 

— — furnished gladiators 36 

prediction of his death 100 

Caiaphas. prophecy of 419 

Cain, mark on 98 

sacrifice of, why rejected 456 

Caius on the term satisfaction 436 

California, why not elected to receive the gospel 542 

Caliya, the serpent 26 

Called, many,'few chosen 554, 561 

three descriptions of. 557 

Callicratides on adultery 37 

Calling and election 533, 557 

— — precedes election 549, 554 

■ of the gospel 549, 557 

effectual, a fiction 557-561 

design of 558 

Synod of Dort on effectual 558 

place of in the scheme of salvation 561 

Call of God defined... 557 

Calpa, Brahminical... 34 

Calvinism, makes God the author of evil 242, 575 

inconsistent with the doctrine of total de- 
pravity 386, 406, 527 

scriptures supposed to favor, examined 562 

limits the extent of the atonement 572 

unknown in the primitive Church 577 

< consequences of ; 591, 592 

not derived from Scripture. 595 

origin of 595 

requires sin till death 612 

Calvinistic controversy 519 

Calvinists, some hold the Scientia Media 213 

some deny prescience of contingent events 213 

some hold, some deny, God is the author of sin. 242, 575 

on original sin 403 

on imputed righteousness 480 

on regeneration and justification 501 

on election and effectual calling 531 

on God's sovereignty 542, 607 

on the damnation or annihilation of infants 552 

hold truth with their errors 572, 611 

resort to metaphysical subtilties 611 

Calvin on Ps. xlv .. 293 

on Acts xiii. 32, 33 301 

on the fall 386 

on privation of original righteousness , 403 

his defective statement of the fall 403 

on the natural state of man 405 

on the imputed righteousness of Christ... 480, 483-486 

on justification, the remission of sin 484, 490 

on Acts xiii. 38, 39 484 

on Ps. xxxii. 1 ;.. 486 

on Isa. xlv. 24 486 

on Rom. iv. 5-8 490 

on the imputation of faith 493 

on Matt. xix. 13 552 

on 1 Cor. iv. 7 569 

- — on God's course with reprobates 571 

on election and predestination 573 

a supralaapsarian 577 

sketch of his history 577 

on permission and appointment 596 

allowed of Episcopacy 686 

on the Lord's Supper 732 



Camera obscura, the eye a 179 

Cameron, John, on Acts xiii. 32, 33 301 

on Rom. i. 4 309 

on imputed righteousness 480 

his system of theology 589, 595 

Campbell, George, D.D., his refutation of Hume 51 

on miracles, alluded to 97 

on John v. 37, 38 305 

on the intermediate state of the soul 616 

Canaanites, human sacrifices among. 38 

destruction of, justified 136 

Canaan, settlement of the Israelites in 98 

as a type, understood by the patriarchs and Jews. 462 

Canon of Scripture 78 

Canons, Church, how formed 695 

Capital sins and punishments under the law 444 

punishment, when lawful 656 

Capp's version of John i. 10 297 

Captives and their progeny reduced to slavery 656 

Captivity in Babylon, effect of, upon the Jews 23 

Captivity of the Jews, predictions of the, fulfilled 108 

Carolostadt on the Lord's Supper 731 

Carpenter, Dr., on the phrase "ascend into heaven".... 270 

Cassian, semi-Pelagianism of 578 

Casuistry, systems of, their evil tendency 626 

Catalogues, ancient, of the Scriptures 78 

Causation, theories of. 53, 157, 167 

Cause and effect, eternal in the Trinity 314 

Cause of the death of Christ..: 418 

Causes and effects, notion of eternal succession of. 156, 177 

second 176,184 

Cautionary fear, use of ' 632 

Cave, Wm., D.D., on government of primitive Church.. 684 

on primitive ordinations 691 

Cavils of infidels 136 

Cavities of the body 181 

Celsus attests the truth of Christian history 72 

Censoriousness forbidden 654 

Censures, Church, how inflicted and removed 696-699 

Ceremonial laws, abrogated.. 622 

— -principles of, binding 622 

Cerinthus, Gnostic doctrines of 294, 322 

Certainty not opposed to contingency 215 

is in the mind, not the action 215. 600 

distinguished from necessity 600 

Ceylon, religion of. 18, 34, 99 

Chalcedon, council of, on the person of Christ 347, 694 

Chaldee paraphrases 80 

Chalmers, Thomas, D.D., on the Jews 108 

his Discourses on Modern Astronomy alluded to... 141 

on the Mosaic cosmogony 142 

Chance, folly of attributing creation to 168 

Chandler, Bishop, answer of, to Collins 112 

Chandler, Dr. Samuel, answer of, to Collins 112 

Change, a proof of the existence of God 162 

in the affections and dispensations of God not in- 
consistent with immutability 223, 227 

Chanun, a name of God 150 

Chaos, by whom held 25 

a fiction 143 

Chapman on internal evidence 55 

on satisfaction 436,447,451 

Character, regard to, a check to vice 406 

Charity, universal, binding 134, 653 

source of 653 

what it excludes 653 

defined 653 

what it demands 654 

Charles I., rebellion against 678 

Charnock, Stephen, on the immutability of God 226 

Cheerfulness inspired by charity 654 

Cheerful service due to masters 671 

Cheremon on Moses 65 

Chesed, a name of God 151 

Cheselden on the arteries 181 

Children members of the Church 393, 715 

prone to evil 395, 400,401, 583 

death of, proves depravity 402 

elected with then - parents 548 

case of those who suffer with their parents 551 

duties of 667 

duties to 669 

baptism of 712 

why called holy, 1 Cor. vii. 14 715 

Chinese traditions of the flood 26 

- — sacrifices among the „ 27 

chronology 141 

innocence of, denied 394 

Chorepiscopi 688 

Chosen out of the world 565 



ANALYTICAL INDEX 



749 






PAGE 

Christ, general expectation of 21 

— history of 64 

resurrection of 88 

reality of his death 88 

• minute prophecies concerning 109 

is God 258, 267, 288 

preexistence of 268 

the Jehovah of the Old Testament 274 

titles of 285 

Divine attributes of 325 

humanity of 329, 346 

Divine acts of 330, 466 

the Creator 330 

worship paid to 335 

—— forgives sins 335 

merit of his death 416 

vicarious character of , 418, 440 

righteousness of 438, 442 

substitution of, agreeable with justice 440 

a sacrifice 442 

how made sin 451, 480 

our Passover 454 

first promise of, explained 464 

how he represents man 480, 590 

object of faith 496 

to be in . 510, 556 

died for all 519, 590 

Dominus absohdus 592 

benevolence of 655 

errors concerning his person condemned 694 

Christianity, history of, admitted by its enemies 72 

morality of 130, 622 

diffusion of 133 

actual effects of 134 

objections to, answered 135 

Christians, primitive, worshipped Christ 341 

Christs, false 95 

Chronology, Mosaic, Hindoo, Chinese, and Egyptian.... 141 

Chryalus on the original state of man 375 

Chrysostom on Rom. ix. 5 295 

on the imputation of faith 492, 513 

■ on Matt. v. 19 623 

on Rom. xii. 12 633 

Chubb on the prophecy concerning Judah 106 

Churches, election and rejection of... 548 

domestic 639 

unity and plurality of 688 

Church worships Christ 341, 351 

election and abrogation of the Jewish 532 

Reformed, the origin of the 577 

east and west, on predestination 578 

a visible and permanent society 680 

— —- end of its organization 680 

nature of its government 680, 690 

defined 680 

officers in the 681 

. governors of the 681, 689 

worship and government of the, modelled after 

the synagogue, not the temple. 683 

unity of the 688 

independency of each particular 688 

not under one visible head 688 

evils of its union with the state 689 

New Testament model of a.. 689 

liberty of its members 689 

ordination of its ministers 690 

laws of the G91 

disciplinary regulations of the 692, 696 

ministers admit persons to the 693 

ministers expel unworthy members and ministers 

from the 693 

allows of associated particular churches 693 

— admission into the, rules of 693 

ends of the authority of the 694-696 

Confessions of the 694 

councils of the 694 

censures inflicted by the <i'.)ii 

sacraments of the." 699 

■ one in all ages 715 

children members of the 715 

Cicero, skepticism of 13 

on the influence of philosophers 16 

on skepticism 19 

on Hie origin of law 20 

desired a revelation SO 

on liie weakness Of reason 30 

denied Bhe foreknowledge of God 81 

disapproved gladiatbrial combats 36 

on the use of reason 59 

on Plato's account of Socrates 71 



PAGE 

Cicero on the death of Caesar, etc 100 

speaks of the art of nature 168 

on the atomic theory 169 

on the omniscience of God 212 

on the original state of man 375 

on philosophy as a remedy for sin 396 

his xise of pro 420 

on suicide 658 

Cingalese, moral state of the 33 

Circumcision, a memorial 70 

■ respected spiritual as well as temporal promises... 704 

a sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. 699, 704, 710 

a federal and initiatory sacrament 704, 714 

why re-instituted by Moses 705 

controversy concerning 705 

servants and proselytes admitted to 705, 70S 

grounds on which it may and may not be practiced 

by Christians 705-707, 712 

superseded by baptism 707-712 

spiritual import of 710 

■ showed the placability of God 710 

the symbol of regeneration 710 

believing adults and their children admitted to.... 712 

Circumincession in God 313 

Circumstantial testimony of the New Testament 84 

City in ruins representing the state of the world 238 

Civilization imperfect without Christianity 155 

Clarendon, Lord, his History 74 

Clarke, Dr. Adam, on the Egyptian magi 91 

on the scriptural character of God 118 

on the creation 143 

on the scriptural names of God 150 

on the Greek article 293 

on Prov. xxx. 4 303 

Clarke, Dr. Samuel, on the authority of philosophers... 16 

■ on the ground of moral obligation 42 

his definition of a miracle 45 

on internal evidence 54 

■ on types 104 

on the laws of nature 159 

on the infinite series of beings 161 

on an infinite Intelligence 163 

his d priori argument on the existence of God 1S8 

on infinite space 190 

on the unity of God 191 

on the mode of omnipresence 210 

on prescience 216 

on the name angel applied to Christ 283 

■ on the relative sense of the term God 288 

on Rom. ix. 5.... 295 

on the worship of Christ 342 

semi-Arianism of 352 

Classics, ancient copies of 82 

Claudian refers to the fall 375 

Clean and unclean animals 455 

Cleanthes, hymn of, to Jupiter 206 

Clement of Alexandria quotes Daniel in the LXX 112 

on the appearance of Christ to the patriarchs 2S3 

on Titus ii. 13 293 

Clement of Rome on public worship 640 

Clinic baptism defined 723 

Clysma, Red Sea crossed at 86 

Ccetus presbyterorum 683 

Cogitation proves the existence of God 174 

Coincidences of Scripture 132 

Collateral evidences of revelation 57. L32 

Collins, objections of, to prophecy 112 

moral character of 130 

Comfortable settlement of children e70 

Commerce, returns and risks of 241 

Commission, the gospel, extends to all 522 

Common grace. Calvinistic notion of 407 

Cam m u ni amsilio pre&yterorwin > s; > 

Compact, social, theories of 67 I. 1 3 6 

Compassion) a duty 

Compensation for man's punishment, the death o\ 

Christ viewed as a 

Complacency of God 

CbmpreslJyters 

Concomitants of justification 

Conditional prescience, theories of 213 

Conditions of pardon, inconsistenl with imputed right) 

eousness 489 

Conduct of (iod towards free agents 

Confessions, Protestant, not generally Calvinistic... 

Confidence a, pail of faith 496, 50 

Confirmation* the rite of. not scriptural 7;>o 

Conflagration, a general, expected i>> heathens 

a j" nodical heathen notion of 



-' 



k n .,:::: : &z iki zx. 



C:a; -._-■.. i-rir= ." SI 

a 

right of _ 

Deists mar ha~-: right of 

A:..r.--- : _ ." :' 

2. L- .'. - ::a \a :az ran: -a i ;-:"::— 2:2 

'!■:--:: : ; : ;;; - :" ""ae :-■?-!: ::' ::c : .::^-r::: If-:. 2a 1 : : 

- ..." 

personal identity consists in £3. 

Conspiracies condemned 

_a.ce confession- not Calrimstie — 

a" 

--. - i : --..- 

:aaonal sins . ICQ 

. ri-r-3 "Z 

a speculative er rw m 

Contagion and infection of original sin 386 

- ■--.--£- : . z: ---- --. : --- ? -v a ■-"■-.:-:- -2: 22^ 

:•---:•-:- --: ; : 






: 



.a :-:e ZU 212 
2:2. nam- :aaei:~ -1- -2^ 


id- " ~~"~ 62 


-- 

— .= :;- 2" .1 




ii: 


» 

.- 2.: 



| CnrceDi 

:- r:-: -.'. 75 r. nan: 

: 

.aainal 



: lav 

airth... 

- the a:.:::: species of 

1 



. the Jehovah. 



hi com] 

:n ::t 

z : S-: ri 
on the ; nshi] 

[ JTTB - - 

rr::2.r:7 :zz.:izzl~z 

Don 2 

Jkjbor Jehovah 

,_ 
I 
i 

: ::' 
- - :' 
Dathei Ex xxiii 2 

■ Isa. — : 4. 1- I Matt. L ill... 

. - 

■- 2- ::: 

an on the antiquity of the earth... 

2 ---- 2 : - 2r : ■". -..-;:- 2 

_ vii - :: -_~ .- ;-2 :: ::' :L -- ". 

:a — 2:": -rise a_~a .2"-: - . ; :~ : 

:::-n 2r-2 iaaans: :2:e 2-:.t- : :- ± 2e2=. 




to limit the applies, r. >n oi 

221 




-r 

" 

Cr-L: -:-:..- 2 -..: !a--: ±1.;. -k2<; 

- — -" :-" --2 

on D.aGfiac— --- 2 

on the death cf Chrii: 

▼.a 

Cr.-r- : a::n _■? :--— — ::" :"ae .; "2 

:.. -: :~:f-".~« 

two kinds of. nnder the Jewish law ^ 

-:.: -:" 

Criticism, licentious, of socinian ; €11 

Cr ::>:_- : ,-7 ::' - 

Crcesus consulting oraele-s 101 

.. 
Cudworth. Ralph. DJ)_ strictures on Plutaren 


: 



I- -.:". 2... . . £3 

2 :2:- .;>:_.--. -a ::' : ^ 2 rl :". . :' 7 -r : 1 

in what sense they art a -. - 

-t :al '-■::- a:: -.a~-n 27 -.n.-ai ii4 

recognized in - Aament _ 623 

2e:r:: a. a :: :a :"ae N'e^ 7 -:a.:r writers 
; Declaratory and premiss. : :!.... 

... 596 

;f God sometimes revoked :97-*» 

2 a _- . ■ ■ . . --•-:: 

:■' 2 

. s of grace and glory..... 564 

>riginofl_ - 135 

may be tolerated by government 663 

i Delaney. Patrick. D2D-. on the primitiTe rerelation . 

i — on sacrifice 

[ Delight in others" happiness a doty 654 



ANALYTICAL INDEX 



751 



Deliverance, redemption a 428 

Delphos, oracle at 112 

Delta, prophecy concerning 116 

De Luc on the antiquity of the earth 141, 142 

Deluge, punitive character of the 22 

traditional evidence of the 26 

• miraculous character of the 98 

universal, geological evidence of a 141, 145, 239 

goodness of God manifested in the 239 

Demiurgus, the Logos of the Gnostics 322 

Democritus denied the immortality of the soul 35 

Demons, worship of 94 

Demosthenes on the origin of law 20 

Depravation from deprivation 403 

Depravity of man, universal 118, 400 

evidence of the 393 

scriptural doctrine of 396 

< not caused by example 400 

not inconsistent with some virtue 406 

Derham's Astro and Physico Theology alluded to... 167, 229 

Descent of the soul 405 

Design, marks of, in the works of God 163 

' in creation 167, 209 

Despotism, how to be resisted 676-679 

Destruction distinguished from damnation 587 

Devil, limit of his power 93, 100 

the serpent 372 

a traducer 380 

the tempter of man 380 

his hatred to God 381 

captivity of man to the 430 

Devils, character of 362 

Dewar on moral obligation 628 

Difference between men in regard to the gospel 569 

Differences and resemblances in nature show the wis- 
dom of God 231 

Difficulties of the Bible 136 

Diffusion of revelation 41 

of Christianity 133 

Dignity of a person gives value to his sufferings 434 

Diocesan Episcopacy, original form of 684 

unscriptural claims of 685 

a prudential regulation 686 

allowed by Reformed churches 686 

Dioceses, origin of 684 

Diodorus Siculus on the Egyptian doctrine of immor- 
tality 33 

■■' on Moses 65 

Diogenes Laertius on absorption 33 

Direct witness of the Spirit 514 

(See Witness of the Spirit.) 

Discerption of the soul from God 33 

Discord cast out of heaven, Homer's account of 375 

Discipline of man's present state 119 

necessary to man 244 

■ nature and ends of Church 681, 691, 696-699 

exercised by ministers 692 

rigidness of, in the primitive Church 698 

Disembodied saints 615-617 

Disinterestedness of the New Testament writers 84 

Dispensation, meaning of 363 

Dispensations, the three 475 

of Providence, merciful 476 

Distinguishing grace, Calvinistic fiction of 562 

Distributive justice 248 

Divine influence and free agency 127 

manifestations in early ages 154 

cause 159 

Divinity of Christ, importance of the doctrine of the... 258 

shows the value of atonement 259, 434 

shows the evil of sin 259,434 

the basis of Christian experience 260 

outline of Scripture testimony in relation to the.. 267 

did not suffer, yet gave value to his sufferings 4:55 

Divinity of the Holy Ghost, scriptural proof of the 207 

Divisibility predicable of matter, not mind 199 

of God denied 268 

Divorce, among Gentiles 37, 134 

evaded by polygamy 865 

rule of 665 

Docetce 294, 846 

Doctrine, sound, how preserved by the Church 094 

Doddridge, Philip, D.D., on miracles 45 

on the origin of evil 240 

on the Trinity 255 

on Rom. ix. 5 296 

on Rom. i. 4 868 

on Rom. iii. 24-20 4:i:; 

on Rom. ix. 22 541 

Dodwcil, Henry, Esq., on the Trinity 860 



PAGE 

Doederlein on the Divine attributes 325 

Dolomieu on the Mosaic chronology 141 

Domestic religion 637-639, 672 

Dominicans, predestinarians 578 

Dominion not the full idea of the term God 288 

not the image of God 364 

man's dominion, how held 380 

Dort, Synod of, on commanding all men to believe 529 

on the restricting of faith to the elect 530 

on personal unconditional election and effectual 

calling 549-561, 584-587, 595 

"Judgment of" and "Rejection of Errors" by. 584-586 

different parties in 587 

condemned not supralapsarianism 587 

Double organs of the body indicate design in crea- 
tion 170, 180 

Douglass, Bishop, on miracles 98 

Doxologies to the Trinity 340 

Drawn to Christ, who are 562, 563 

why some are not 562, 563 

Druids, traditions of the flood among the 26 

human sacrifices among the 38 

Dualism 17, 23, 242, 375 

Duelling, a crime and a vice 660 

palliating views of, censured 660 

classed with mirrder and suicide 660, 661 

Duns Scotus, his system of theology 578 

Duration of God, mode of the 202 

Duties we owe to God 627, 629 

Dwight, Timothy, D.D., on cause and effect 160 

Earth, how affected by the fall 119 

pre-Adarnite 142 

original formation of the 148 

revolutions of the 149 

phenomena of the, prove the unity of God 193 

original order and harmony of the 239 

how affected by the deluge 239 

Ear, wisdom of God in the formation of the 171 

East, the source of knowledge 20 

Ebionites, doctrines of the 323 

Ecclesiasticus xvii. 1 375 

Edda, quotations from the 26, 376 

Eden, a pattern of the whole earth 370 

Edomites, non-election of the 543 

Education, bad, a proof of depravity 401 

not the cause of man's depravity 401 

Edwards, Jonathan, D.D., on the nature of God 220 

on the foreknowledge of God 225 

on the original state of man 365 

on the conditions of goodness 369 

on death 3S8 

on the fall 404 

on the Will, refuted 005-607 

Edwards, Peter, on infant baptism 714 

Effects, how produced 157, 167 

Effects of Christianity 134 

Effectual calling, a Calvinistic fiction 557-562 

implies reprobation 557-562 

Efficacy of Christ's sufferings 350. 467 

of prayer 635, B86 

Efficient causes 157 

justification 404 

Effusion in baptism 723 

(See Aspersion.) 

Egyptian magi and deities 91. 95. 99 

chronology 141 

Egypt, knowledge of God in 23 

plagues of.. 86, 91, 9S 

Jews transported to 108 

prophecy fulfilled in 115 

Ehieh; a name of (iod 150 

Ehud, conduct of 187 

Ejaoulator-y prayer 886 

Elders. Sec 1'nsln/ters. 

Election of nations 508, 682 

to faith and salvation 680, 

three kinds of 682 

of individuals 5! 

to a Church state 

did not secure salvation 683 

of some an advantage to the non-elect 

collective, not to he confounded with personal. > 

unconditional 

Calvinistic 

dOfiB not indicate spiritual Israelites '. 1 1 

puts some men in more favorable circumstances 

than others ..44 

illustrated by Jacob and Ksau 

design of, in regard to communities 



1&& 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

Election, object of 547 

of children with parents 548 

not personal and eternal 54S, 565 

sac : Beds calling 549 

pnrpose of 549 

involves reprobation 550. 556 

consequences of Calvinistie 550. 591. 592 

to eternal life not unconditional 553 

relation of, to baptism 553 

conditions and nieans of. 553-555 

S tripture evidence of, examined 554-572 

of the Jews and Gentiles 556 

theories of •: 7iS-i ~ x 

number included in 586 

arbitrary 

the. opposed to the world : - 

number of the, mar be increased or diminished... 550 



him 150.290 

t .' 731 

Elijah and the priests of Baal 93 

of, deprived of the priesthood 

wickedness of the posterity of, not decreed 

curse of .* 670 

:hn. D.D.. on good and evil 11 

on the knowledge of God. 1 

Elstter on Phil. ii. 6.7. 34§ 

on Rom. iii. 25 423 

Elymas 93 

n Fields refer to Eden 375 

m, not believed in by philosophers 35 

Emancipation of slaves, rules concerning 657 

E -..' ':. a name of God 151 

:uel, a title of Christ 290 

itments 91, 99 

I the world, criticism on 

Endor. witch of 93 

I, Church of, on the hypostatical union 347 

on the procession of the Holy Ghost 353 

on original sin 

on justification 497, 503 

on predestination 588, 589 

liturgy of the 643 

writers of the, on suicide 

episcopacy :: the 

on general councils 694 

on Church authority 

en the sacraments .". 702 

on the mode of baptism 723 

some writers of the. Zuinglians 732 

on the L 733 

. what it is to be 

Eninity between God and man 425 

Enoch, faith of. 459-170 

Enthusiasts, evangelists and apostles, not 83 

-vrity 654 

Ephosus. comical of 644 

Ephori declared war against slaves 36 

Uasicfn of, to Christ 72 

- — :n the baptism of the Jews 713 

Bpiem stain - >fthe 32 

denied immortality 35 

laughed at oracles 113 

.us, god of --- -- 

Epiphanius on the canon of Scripture 

on the polity of the Church 

rigin of diocesan 684 

a primitive and useful institution 

of the English Church 

See jB " v t.) 

682 

th knowledge of God„ 

312,313 

on moral agencv 377 

on the fell.T ; 377 " 

on man's obligation to God 

oht ::. 600 

pastorian 686 

a of nature 139. 141 

Equality, social, impossible 671 

.ruished from justice 

~ death, for man's 436,437 

. .son Rom. i. 4 ; .' 309 

:n lea Gecii 346 

— — :n the mode of baptism 723 

Apayim. a name of God: 151 

. general prevalence of. 394 

.:-. Thomas. Esq.. on the internal evidence 55 

his illustration of the atonement 

an the _: 



Esau, non-election of 535 

descendants of 543 

in what sense he was hated 545 

Esdras 2> iii. 4-7 

vii. 4* 

:md Dendera zodiacs 141 

J : rme f 

ished churches, unscriptural discipline : 
Estius on Ps. xlv 

1 generation of Christ, not absurd 315. 332 

essentia] 315 

in what sense not voluntary 315 

Eternal life, meaning of. 

Eternal now, notion of 

Eternal punishment 409 

Eternity of God 

ascribed to Christ 

ascribed to the Holy Ghost 359 

of matter, notion of. See Matter. 

Etesian winds 

a Sandwich Island deity 26 

Eucharistic sacrifices 451. 461, 471. 472 

Eucharist, origin of this title 

3 . - Stamper.) 

Eunuch, the. an Abyssinian believer in Moees 23 

not immersed 

Eusebius. extracts from Origen in 78 

fragments of tEnomaus in 113 

Eutyches, error of 346 

3 — mdemne by the -council of Chalcedon „ 694 

Evangelists, the four, character of. 71 

- — temporary officers 

ration proves the wisdom of God „.. 230 

lolatrous invocation of 375 

.connection 157 

Evidence of revelation, presumptive, from moral agency. 9 

from the rule of moral actions .. 11 

from the evils of the present state 13 

from the weakness of reason 15 

from the traditions of the heathen 19 

from the religious knowledge of the heathen 35 

from the religions of the heathen 38 

external, miracle:- 44 

external, prophecy 

internal 54, 117 

rational and authenticating, distinguished 55 

collateral, of the Scriptures generally : 

collateral, of the Pentateuch .*. „. 65 

collateral, of the Gospels 69 

Evil, moral, not necessary - 

origin of .*. 242. 33 

how overruled 

why permitted 

universal among men 400 

strength of man's tendency to 400. 401 

not infused by God ." 

Evil, natural principle of 32 

various theories of 233 

natural, variety of. 234 

not designed by God 234 

many may be avoided 236 

present, overruled for good 236 

— — not necessary 

iv;l; f bc :iety. what they indicate of God 13 

Evil speaking "forbidden 

Evil spirits, why permitted to act on the earth 96 

Example, bad, not the cause of man's depravity 400 

bad, proof of depravirv 

— of Christ, use of the 

Ex sptions to general rules, cantion concerning 

Excommunication, nature and design of ~ 6S1, 696 

Executive officers in the Church 

Existence of God 

Ex opcre operantis 

Ex opirt operato 7 

Ex r::sm appended to baptism 

-nt. the atonement as an -i 

i:n. Christ's death an 

day of 446 

lifires 443 

(See Sacrifices.) 

Extempore prayer to be conjoined with forms 641-644 

objections to, answered 643 

-ion predicable of matter, not mind .„ _. 199 

of the Divine essence 

Extreme unction not a sacrament 

vice 

Eye. the. proves design in creation 171, 1 

1 defended from the charge of falsehood 115 

Ezra net the author of the Pentateuch 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



753 



Faber, Rev. G. S., on heathen cosmogony 25, 26 

his argument on the Pentateuch 75 

— — on reconciliation 475 

Fabricius and the elephant 374 

Face, anatomy of the 181 

Factious revolutions unlawful 676, 679 

Facts, five, which prove the fall 394 

Faithfulness of God 251 

Faith not contrary to reason 63 

«— in reference to God 153 

apart of morality 257 

i evidence of 258 

— — Christ the peculiar object of 260, 494 

— — necessary to pardon 416, 432, 439 

— — of Abel and other patriarchs 457-462, 496 

of Abraham 457-462, 489-495, 503 

— — object of patriarchal 459 

- — meaning of, in Hebrews xi... 459 

* — imputed for righteousness 485, 490-495 

• justifying 494 

■ not simple intellectual belief 494 

* excludes human merit 494, 497 

implies trust as well as assent... 494-497, 505, 528, 630 

in what sense accepted for obedience 495 

* in what sense a work 495 

* excludes boasting 495 

— — a sine quel non in justification 495 

the gift of God 495-498 

defined 496 

i the only necessary condition of justification... 497-502 

— — erroneous views upon 497, 502 

sola, not solitaria 499, 504 

' does not include works in justification 500 

i does not eke out imperfect obedience 500 

*=• — the root and mother of obedience 501 

« does not justify by a virtue per se 501 

■ what is the essence of justifying 506 

■ of the Old Testament saints 506 

the instrument of adoption and regeneration 509 

appropriating 513 

admits of degrees 515 

obligatory on all 520, 528 

' excluded by Calvinistic reprobation 529, 585, 591 

may be lost 564 

offered not to merely an elect few 592-594 

Falling from grace 525, 561 

Fall of man, natural proofs of the 239 

how effected 242 

**«- the Mosaic account of the, not allegorical 370 

• the Mosaic account of the, reasonable 373 

mythological references to the 375 

various views upon the 383 

occurred not by the Divine will 574-576 

Falsehood a characteristic of heathen nations 37 

Family prayer, obligation and advantages of... 637-639, 672 

>- relations and duties 664 

Fanatics, when to be restrained by government.... 662, 663 

Farmer, Hugh, D.D., on miracles 46, 91, 99 

on Egyptian enchantments 91, 99 

Fatalism, pernicious offects of 31 

Fate, notion of 201 

stoical and Calvinistic 577 

Fathers and masters should conduct family worship. 637-639 
Fathers, testimony of, to the uncorruptedness of the 

Scriptures 82 

* testimonies of, to the preexistence of Christ 283 

on Titus ii. 13 292 

believed in the divinity of Christ 351 

Father, the, sometimes appeared to "the fathers" 283 

and Son not wholly figurative tei'ms 310 

the fountain of Deity 313 

the eternal cause of the Son 314 

God a Lord as well as a 415 

Fear of God, a leading duty 631 

nature, ground, and use of the 631, 632 

Fear, servile 631 

filial 668 

Feast, the gospel, all invited to 521, 557, 562 

why many do not come to 557, 662 

Federal character of Adam 888, 588 

rites 899,704 

Feore on casuistry 828 

Fiducial assent 498 

Fidus on infant baptism 721 

Fifth Monarchy men, why restrained 868 

Figurative and analogical language 468 

Figures of speech, how explained 68 

Filial duties 86? 

Filiation of Christ. See Sonship. 

Final causes 157, 107 

48 



Fines of the Jewish law 444 

Fire an object of adoration among the Persians 28 

Fires may be kindled on the Christian Sabbath 652 

Firmament, Hebrew word for 144 

First-born, destruction of the Egyptian 86 

in what sense Christ is the 332, 333 

First Cause, how made known 154 

ground of the 188 

must be infinite 210 

Firstlings of Abel's flock 456 

Fish, analogy of, to other animals 194 

number and happiness of 236 

Fitness for pardon, repentance does not constitute a.... 414 

for pardon, not induced by prayer 633 

Fitness of things, theory of the 247, 361 

■ no ground of moral obligation. 626-628 

Fleetwood on miracles 90 

on justice and equity 672 

Flesh and spirit, meaning of 399 

Flood, the. See Deluge. 

Floralia, the, a shameful festival of the Romans 39 

Fontenelle, M. de, his " History of Oracles" noticed.... 96 

Forbidden fruit, precept concerning the 379 

Force, resistance to government by parliamentary and 

military 677 

not allowed in Church government 681 

Foreknowledge of God, constitutes no foundation for 

Calvinism 52, 213, 600 

theories of the 210, 559 

consistent with the freedom of man's will 212, 224 

incomprehensible, yet we have some notion of it. 216 

like foreknowledge in man, only infallible 219 

distinguished from present and after knowledge... 228 

of believers 559 

sometimes means fore-approval 559 

sometimes means simple prescience 560 

(See Prescience.) 

Foreknowledge peculiar to God 94 

Forgiveness of sin, not discovered by reason 13 

(See Justification.) 

Formal causes 157 

Form of God, explained 344 

Forms of prayer, use and abuse of 641-644 

antiquity of 642 

of the Church of England 643 

(See Liturgies.) 

Fornication, marriage designed to prevent 665 

Fossils 147 

France on the eternal Sonship 314 

Franciscans oppose predestination 578 

Free-agency compatible with Divine influence 127 

agrees with the moral attributes of God 2J5 

possessed by our first parents 376 

essential to obedience 376 

prerequisite to retribution 377 

compatible with temptation 377 

affected by motives 410 

Free-agents, actions of, not Divinely determined 602 

Free knowledge of God, theory of the 213 

Freeness of pardon 430 

Free-will, impotency of _ 3S5 

opinions on 57S, 5S1 

French churches on the fall 886 

creed of the 577, 58S, 5S9, 595 

Fruit of the Spirit follows his witness 515 

Fulfil, meaning of in James ii. 23 504 

Functions of life 197 

Future state, not indicated in nature or providence 12 

Future things, how known to God 228 

Galen, his hymn of praise to Ood alluded to „ 170 

Gallic Church, baptisms of the 728 

Gamaliel proves the resurrection of Christ 89 

Gambling, evil of 861 

Garden of Eden, fables concerning the ;'.:."> 

Gast, Saxon for Ghost 

Gauls, human sacrifices among the 

QeddeS, Alexander. LL.D., on the Sabbath 

Genesis, brevity and design vf 463,464, I 18 

when wriiten 41 

Geneva, Chinch, senate, and academy of >77 

Gennadius on Gallic ha] it isms 

Gontiles, election of the 

non-elect, not necessarily lost 

God's purpose concerning their election 

Genuineness and authenticity dlStillgUlBhed 75 

Geologj corroborates the Scriptures i ; 

objections from, noticed 141, 1 18 

rival theories of 148 

Germans, human sacrifices among the 



754 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



PASS 

Germ theory of resurrection, a Jewish speculation 619 

not found in the fathers 619 

involves difficulties, removes none 620 

— is no resurrection 620 

identical with metempsychosis 620 

Gerson, R. Levi Ben, on sacrifices , 448 

Giants, battle of the, refers to the fall 375 

Gibbon on the spread of Christianity 133 

on the miracles of the early Christians 134 

on the defects of ancient philosophy 207 

Gideon, and others, faith of. 470 

Gildon on an intelligent First Cause 164 

Gilgal, 6tonage at 68 

Gill, John, D.D., on baptism 713 

Gisbome, Thomas, on the evils of the present state. 120, 238 

on the deluge 146 

Given to Christ, meaning of 562 

why men are not 562 

who are 562 

Giving, authority, directory, and excitement of.... 655, 656 

Gladiators, Roman, number of 36 

Glassius on (TUfiariKCOC 349 

Gleig on the unity of God 192 

Gleig's Stackhouse on the feebleness of reason 155 

Gnostics described 322,346, 577 

opposed by St. John 323, 346 

Calvinists endorse some of their errors 577 

denied the resurrection 618 

Godliness, nature and ground of 629 

God not exclusively merciful 12 

severity of 13 

existence of. denied by many 17 

name of, taken for granted by Moses 17 

knowledge of, once universal 22 

existence of, not discovered by reason 118, 154 

scriptural character of 118, 2S9 

government of 119. 152 

justice of 124. 151, 248. 409, 551 

love of 124, 222, 423, 550 

righteousness of 124, 409 

names of. in the Bible 150 

how made known 150 

condescension of 151 

eternitv of 151, 152, 201 

goodness of 151, 152, 232 

mercy of 151, 152, 223, 246 

self-existence of 151. 188 

actions ascribed to 151, 218, 227 

omnipotence of .' 151. 204 

truth of 151, 251 

duties we owe to 151, 627 

providence of 152 

perfection of 152 

wisdom of 152, 166. 211, 229, 550. 607 

unitvof 152, 191 

a spirit 152, 194, 220, 223 

omnipresence of. 152, 207 

omniscience of 152, 210 

incomprehensible 152. 210, 230 

foreknowledge of 152, 210, 600 

immutability of 152, 223, 225. 635 

holiness of 152, 247,409 

meaning of the word 152, 288 

dominion of 153 

substance 153 

necessary existence of 153, 161, 188 

— — existence of, not an innate idea 156 

existence of, proved a priori 156, 187 

existence of, proved dposteriori 157, 160 

self-active... 161 

independence of 161. 189, 227 

intelligent 166 

personality of 183 

attributes of 191,423 

affections of 219. 222 

anger of 219, 222,424 

absoluteness of 227 

liberty of 229 

not the author of sin 242. 575-5S4 

impartiality of 249, 552 

faithfulness of 251 

veracity of 251 

all-sufficient 252 

perfect 252 

unsearchable 252 

trinity of 253 

plural appellatives of 264 

a title of Christ 2S8 

not merely a relative term 288 

in what sense men, angels, the devil, etc., are called. 288 



PAOK 

God, a title of the Holy Ghost 353, 359 

i a rewarder of those who seek him 468 

| how affected by the atonement 476 

; long-suffering of 541 

grace of 550 

I sincerity of 551 

does not harden men's hearts 567 

I made the author of sin by Calvinism 578-580 

Gods, heathen character of the 39 

Goel, import of the name, applied to God 233 

, Mosaic law respecting the 659 

Golden age 20, 131, 376 

I rule 131 

Gomarus on conditional prescience 213 

Good and evil, knowledge of 373 

Good, chief, opinions on the 40 

! greatest, theory of the 627 

Goodness of God stated in Scripture 232 

is of his nature 232 

efficient and inexhaustible 233 

rich and free 233 

extends to all 233 

compatible with the existence of natural and 

moral evils 233 

how limited 242 

I demands a penalty for sin 411 

erroneous view of 412 

! directs his sovereignty 607 

Goodness, what it is 171 

an attribute of the Holy Ghost 360 

Goodwin, John, on imputed righteousness. 481, 482, 485, 486 

on imputed sin 488 

on election 550 

I on the various forms of Calvinism 580 

I Gospel, rejection of the. cause of condemnation 582 

I rendered a plague by Calvinism 592 

Gospels, authenticity of the, Leslie's Rules on the 69 

simplicity of the 70 

writers of the 70 

(See Scriptures.) 

Goteschele on predestination 578 

Gothic reference to the fall 376 

Gouge on a man's property in his children 669 

Government, Church, ordained by God 6S0, 690 

may vary 681 

resembled that of the Jewish synagogues 683 

subjects of 690 

vested in pastors 690 

great object of 696 

Government, civil, as to the right of conscience 662 

province of, in religion 662 

ordained by God 673 

duties and prerogatives of 673-679 

theory of expediency 674 

theory of the social compact of 674, 676 

when and how it may be resisted 675-679 

various kinds of, lawful 676 

Government of children a parental duty 670 

nature and importance of 670 

of servants 671 

Government of God, character of the 119 

principles of the 408 

natural and moral, confounded by Calvinism 603 

not arbitrary .". 607, 608 

Grace in harmony with justice 250 

Holy Ghost/the source of 360 

effects of. described 385 

given to all 408, 571 

distinguished from law 415 

inconsistent with imputed righteousness 438 

as well as law, revealed to the patriarchs 464 

justification by 491 

inconsistent with Calvinian election 550, 591, 592 

insufficient, a fiction 570 

before conversion 570, 609 

may be used or neglected 571 

acts of. not by God 571 

imparted to all 571. 603 

superabundance of 583, 584 

fiction of sufficient ineffectual 593-595 

not irresistible 609-611 

Gradations in nature show the wisdom of God 231 

Grasinus on Rom. ix. 5 295 

Gratitude inspired by the death of Christ 125 

relation of, to prayer 635 

to parents 668 

Graves, Richard, D.D., on the divinity of Christ 260 

Gravitation, power of 230 

Greek of the New Testament 132 

Greeks, human sacrifices among the 38 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



755 



PAGE 

Gregory, Dr. Olinthus, on testimony 52 

on the difficulties in Scripture 136 

on the mysteries in mathematics 138 

— — on Hume's theory of causation 158 

Gregory Nazianzen on the canon of Scripture 79 

Gretton on the a priori' argument 188 

Griesbach, and other editors of the New Testament.... 82 
Grinfield, Rev. E. W., on the passions attributed to God. 223 

Grotius, Hugo, on the flood 26 

on the ground of moral obligation 42 

on Acts xiii. 32, 33 301 

on the death of Christ 420 

on IPet. ii. 24 421 

——on Isa. liii. 5-7 421 

on 2 Cor. v. 21 421 

on Gal. iii. 13 422 

on YkaafJ-og, IXaaTTjpiov 422,423 

on the atonement 423 

on Eph. ii. 16 426 

on Rom. v. 11 426, 427 

on satisfaction by the death of Christ 427 

on redemption 428, 429 

on the dignity of Christ as a sufferer 435 

on satisfaction 436 

■ on the expediency of Christ's death 437 

on Ezek. xviii. 20 442 

on the heathen sacrifices 443 

on Abel's sacrifice 456 

-on patriarchal faith 463 

on the liberty of man 603 

Ground of moral obligation 42 

Growth in nature proves the existence of a God 173 

Gualterus, Rhodolphus, on the imputation of faith 493 

Guilt not charged on Christ 451 

Guilty persons may be substituted by innocent 440 

Guise, John, D.D., on the phrase " Spirit of holiness"... 309 

Habit, power of 244 

Habits distinguished from principles 368, 632 

represented by vestments 487 

Hales, William, D.b., on the dividing of the Red Sea... 87 

on the enchantments of the Egyptian magi 91 

■ on the Jews 108 

on the size of the ark 146 

on Micah v. 2 303 

Half-promises, fiction of 594 

Hall, Bishop, on the Sonship of Christ 300 

Hallet on the Divine institution of sacrifices.. 454, 472. 475 

Hammond on Rom. i. 4 309 

on Kara^Tiayrj 427 

on Heb. ix 454 

Ham, the curse of 668 

Hand-mill, an illustration of natural law 184 

Hand, the, a proof of design in creation 170 

Happiness, preponderancy of, in the world 236 

— — an end of creation 410 

> dependent on obedience 410 

Hardness predicable of matter, not mind 199 

Hardy's Greek Testament on 1 Thess. i. 5-10 77 

Hare. Rev. Edward, on the weakness of reason 155 

on justification 488 

Harmony of the universe proves the unity of God 193 

Harnam Faraun 87 

Harwood, Edward, D.D., on the evangelists 83 

on the preexistence of Christ 273 

Haymo on the imputation of faith 493 

Heart, known alone to God 94 

depravity of the 398 

■ judicial hardening of the 536, 567 

Heathenism has no prophecies 102 

Heathen, origin of their belief 19 

— — immorality of the 35, 118 

system of belief unfounded 70 

writers among the, attest the truth of tho Bible... 72 

character of the 118, 608 

case of the 248 

salvation possible to the 590, 596, 60S 

are under the patriarchal dispensation 608 

how saved 609 

domestic worship among the 639 

Heat, latent 144 

Hebden on universal depravity 397, 398 

Hebrew language, when ceased to be spoken 66 

Hebrews, Epistle to the, the argument of. examined... 451 

Heidegger on the Sabbath 860 

Heidelberg catechism on predestination 689 

on the sacraments.... 701, 702 

Hcla, the hell of the Edda 26 

Hell 424 



Helvetian Confessions on predestination 589 

Herbert, Lord, his articles of belief... 135 

Herding as an employment of fallen beings 241 

Hennas on the divinity of Christ 309 

Herschel, Sir William, on the sun 144 

Hervey, James, on justification 484 

Hesperides, garden of the 375 

Heylin, Dr., on the Synod of Dort 586 

Hierocles, testimony of, to the New Testament 73 

Hilary on the term Jehovah 202 

on Christ, the Jehovah 283 

on Rom. ix. 5 295 

Hill, George, D.D., on John x. 29-39 307 

on the Gospel of John 323 

on the Divine attributes of Christ 330 

on the hypostatic union 351 

misrepresents Arminians on the fall 384 

on the peculiarity of the sufferings of Christ 441 

on the witness of the Spirit 512 

on God's decrees 596, 601 

on the primitive discipline 698 

on views of the Lord's Supper held by the Reformed. 732 

Hindoos, religious opinions of the 18, 31, 222, 375, 376 

innocence of the, denied 394 

Hindostan elected to receive the gospel 542 

Hippolytus on Titus ii. 13 293 

Hircanus, John, conquered the Edomites 543 

Hitta, the intelligence of Budhists 18 

Hobbes, Thomas, moral character of 130 

belief of. 135, 157, 195 

Holden, Rev. George, on the preexistence of Christ. 271, 282 

on the Greek article 293 

on the Sonship of Christ 300 

on Prov. viii 301 

on Heb. iii. 2-6 310 

on the omnipresence of Christ 327 

on Mark xiii. 32 329 

on the doxologies to Christ 340 

on the fall of man 371 

on Prov. xvi. 4 567 

on the Sabbath 647-651 

Holiness defined 247, 368 

belongs to the Holy Ghost 360 

part of the image of God 368 

habits and principles of 368, 632 

(See Sanctification.) 

Holiness of God, seen in his dispensations 247 

stated in Scripture 248 

two branches of the 248 

described 409 

demands punishment for sin 411 

Holland, infants sprinkled in 723 

Holy Ghost, influence of the, reasonable 126 

work of the 261, 354, 360, 404, 477, 515, 610 

divinity of the 267, 353 

not the Father of Christ 310 

sent by Christ 335 

spiration and procession of the 353 

personality of the 353 

manner of his being 35 

Old Testament view of the 354, 477 

not a mere influence or attribute 358 

blasphemy against the 359 

object of worship 360 

forfeited by the fall 403 

man's dependence on the 404, 610 

source of virtue in the unregenerate 406 

the gift of Christ 477 

witness of the 602, 610 

witness of, with ours, four opinions on .">1 1 

partakers of the 696 

all good comes from the 

may be resisted 610 

baptism of the 7_> 

Holy of holies, meaning of 

typical 469 

Holy Ones, meaning of 

Homer, idea of Providence acknowledged in the Iliad i 

refers to the fall of angels 

Homicide 

Homily on Salvation quoted 

on Repentance cited 

HoinoouaioB and Hotnoiousioa 

Honoring parents, import of 

how enforced ' 

Honor, laws of, false and wicked 6<h>, 661 

due to masters 

Hooker, Richard, on justification 

on the witness of the Spirit >17 

Hooper, Bishop, on tho witness of the Spirit 517 



756 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

Hoornbeck on Jehovah as applied to Christ 285 

Horace on human depravity 376 

on the discipline of youth 402 

on the athletse 406 

Horse Paulina?, Paley's, recommended 132 

Home, Bishop, on the worship of Christ 338 

Home, Rev. T. H., his definition of a miracle 45 

on the preservation of the Scriptures 78 

his Introduction alluded to Ill, 133, 137 

Horrible decree 575 

Horsley, Bishop, on Balaam 23 

on heathen prophecies 27 

on the character of Christ 263 

on Christ's coming to his temple 278 

on Sir Isaac Newton 288 

- — on Ps. xlv 293, 310 

— — on Stephen's prayer 337 

on Ps. xcvii 339 

on patristic views of Christ 352 

on the history of the fall 376 

on faith 513 

on the power of the keys 697 

on binding and loosing 697 

Hospitals results of Christianity 134 

Host, elevation of the 731 

Hostility between God and man 425 

Hottentots, ignorant of a God 154 

Houses, or families, baptism of 718 

Howe, Rev. John, on the existence of God 160 

on the motive-power of the universe 166 

on the wisdom of God 167, 232 

on the unity of God 192 

on the perfection of God 206 

■** — on justice in the pardon of sin 249 

on the all-sufficiency of God 252 

on the persons in the Godhead 254, 255 

on original sin 404 

Human attributes, how applied to God 221 

Humanity of Christ 329, 346 

Hume, David, Esq., his argument on miracles 48 

moral character of 130 

belief of 135 

on cause and effect 135 

Humors of the eye 179 

Hunnius on the imputation of faith 493 

Hunter on the principle of life 199 

Hurd, Bishop, on prophecy 102 

Husband and wife, relation of 664 

rights and duties of 666 

Hutchinson, Francis, D.D., on moral obligation 43 

Huttonian and other theories of the earth 144 

Hyde on Persian traditions 26 

Hypostasis 254 

(See Persons in the Godhead.) 
Hypostatic union 346 

Ideas in the Divine mind 230 

Identity, personal 621 

Idolatry, origin of 19 

Israelites prone to 97, 394 

of the Jews, prophecies concerning 107 

abolished by Christianity 134 

checked by a display of omnipotence 204 

chargeable to trinitarians or antitrinitarians 256 

prevalence of 394 

Ignatius on the duty of a bishop 684 

Ignorance, when no excuse for disobedience 10 

of infidels 135 

Ill-will and injury excluded by charity 654 

Illyricus, Matthias Flaccus, on the imputation of faith. 493 
Image of God in which man was created. 221, 364, 387, 660 

Christ the 350 

Immanent acts of God 253 

Immanuel, a title of Christ 290 

Immateriality of God 195, 365 

of the soul 195, 365 

of brutes 200, 365 

Immersion, trine, naked, ancient 720, 723 

not enjoined in Scripture 722 

ill-adapted to certain climates 722 

involves great risk 722 

unfits for devotion 722 

Pentecostal converts, and others, not baptized by. 722 

not decent.... 722 

no example of, in the New Testament 723-729 

Immorality, prevalence of 394 

Immortality not learned from nature 12 

opinions of Egyptians and others upon 33. 

part of the image of God 365 

of the soul, not natural 405 



PACT 

I Immutability of God stated in Scripture 225 

j shown in nature 226 

| proved \>y his moral goA'ernment 226 

j arises out of his nature 226 

j confirmed by changes in his administration.. 227, 635 

I speculations concerning 227, 635 

j Imparity in the ministry, origin of 683 

: Impartiality of God inconsistent with Calvinism 552 

j Impeccability not a consequent of sanctification 614 

I Impenetrability predicable of matter, not mind 199 

Imperfection of man 243, 378 

Implacability forbidden 654 

Implacable, God not 423 

Impossibilities, never commanded 529 

Imprecations of Scripture 137 

Improved Version, Socinian, censured. 282, 290, 291, 292. 
293, 294, 295, 324, 326. 327, 331, 332, 333, 337, 338, 345, 
348, 355, 421, 423, 433. 

Impulsive cause of Christ's death 419 

Impunity, no, for sin 412 

to sinners, how secured 436 

Imputation, nature of 389, 483, 488 

Imputation of Adam's sin... 389, 478, 480, 488, 494, 581-583 
Imputation of Christ's righteousness, not scriptural. 438, 480 

supersedes his sufferings 438, 480 

a fiction, opposed to law 438, 480 

not satisfaction 438, 481 

opposes free pardon 438, 481 

not congruous or possible 481 

is justification by works 481 

confounds the covenants 482 

not a condition of the new covenant 483 

true, in an accommodated sense 485, 488, 489 

Imputation of faith for righteousness 483, 485, 490 

Imputation of righteousness, pardon 495 

Inability, moral and natural 127 

Incarnation of Christ voluntary 441 

Incidental coincidences of Scripture 132 

Incomprehensibility of God does not exclude some 

knowledge of him 220 

Inconsistencies not predicable of omnipotence 206 

Indelicacy and immodesty, the Bible defended from 

charges of 137 

Indemnity for sin, repentance not an 414 

Independence of God 161, 189 

Independence of primitive churches 688 

of modern churches 688 

India, dishonesty in 37 

human sacrifices in 38 

devil-worship in 94 

Indian references to the fall 375 

Inequality of God's dispensations no argument for re- 
probation 609 

Infallibility, the seat of, Romish views of 694 

not in councils 694 

Infant baptism argued from infant circumcision 712 

argued from the non-prohibition of infant mem- 
bership in the Church 713 

argued from the recognition of infant member- 
ship by Christ 715 

argued from antiquity 720 

benefits of 721 

Infanticide among the heathen , 36, 134 

Infants, how affected by the fall 390, 400, 583 

death of, a result of the fall 391, 402, 583 

salvation of those who die 391, 552, 716 

not born justified and regenerate 392 

members of the Church 392, 713 

prayed for by Christ 393 

— —benefited by baptism 393, 721 

innocence of. accounted for 406 

no annihilation of 552 

damnation of, involved in Calvinism 390, 552, 716 

Infection, moral, theory of 403 

Inferential teachings of the Bible 637, 645 

Infidelity produced by Calvinism 592 

may be tolerated by the state 663 

Infidel objections to the fall of man 370 

Infidels, immorality of 130 

Infinite series of beings, theory of an 161 

Infinite space, argument on 190 

Infii-mities, compatible with entire sanctification 615 

Influence, Divine, compatible with free-agency 127 

Iniquity put for punishment 421 

Innocent beings, how they fall 378 

not subject to misery 408 

may suffer for the guilty 440 

Insects, analogy of, to other animals 194 

number and happiness of 235 

Inspiration by the Holy Ghost 355, 359 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



757 



PAGR 

Instinct, difference between, and reason 231 

Institutions of Christianity 699 

Instruction, the source of our knowledge of God 156 

of children, a parental duty 669 

Intellectual attributes of God analogous to man's 223 

Intellectuality proves the existence of God 174 

not the result of organization 185, 195 

Intelligence of God 166, 195 

Intelligence of man, a proof of an intelligent First 

Cause 163 

Intention of Christ's death 592-594 

Intention, Romish doctrine of 700, 703, 730 

Intercession hypothesis of Arians 418 

of Christ 479, 636 

Intercessory prayer, efficacy of 636 

< why it sometimes fails 636 

Interest a check to vice 406 

Intermediate state 615-619 

Internal evidence of revelation 54 

Internal moulds, theory of 186 

Interpretation, rules of 58 

Inventions in Eccl. vii. 29, meaning of 366 

Iremeus on Christ's appearances to the patriarchs 283 

on Cerinthus 323 

on infant baptism 721 

Irish giant compared with Bacon and Newton 139 

Irrational beings, powers of 369 

Irresistibility of grace contrary to Scripture and con- 
sciousness 609-611 

Isaac, intentional offering of, by Abraham, justified.... 137 

faith of 459 

-— Abraham's faith concerning the immolation of.... 459 

— - the election of 534 

the blessing of, not personal 536 

Isaiah, his prophetic character Ill, 114 

Isaiah's vision 265 

Ishinaelites had the knowledge of God 22 

Ishmael, the non-election of. 535, 543 

Israel, the election of 535 

not all, that are of. 546 

Jackson, Thomas, D.D., on incomprehensibility of God. 210 

Jacob and Esau, condition of 535 

Jacob, faith of 469 

election of 535 

conducted family worship 638 

Jah, import of 285 

jailer and family, baptism of the 718, 722 

Jamblicus on the necessity of revelation , 30 

James and Paul on justification 503 

Jamieson, Professor, on geology 141, 143 

on the phrase Angel of the Lord 276 

on the Memra of the Targums 319 

against Arians 352 

Jansenius, a predestinarian 578 

Jasher, import of 366 

Jehovah, import of the name 201, 263 

. the Angel of. 274 

a title of Christ 274,285 

■ an incommunicable name 288 

Christ the ostensible, of the Old Testament 333 

Jehovak JireJl, import of 285 

Jeh(/vah Nissi, import of 285 

Jehovah Sfiallum, import of 285 

Jehovah Zidlcenu, import of 286 

Jenkins, Robert, D.D., on primitive religion 23 

on oracles 100 

• on free-will 377 

Jephthah, conduct of 137 

Jeremiah defended from the charge of falsehood... 113, 115 

Jerome, his catalogue of the Scriptures 79 

quotes Daniel in the LXX 112 

on the design of John's Gospel 323 

on pastors and teachers 682 

on Episcopacy 683, 686 

Jerusalem, destruction of, predicted 214 

Jerusalem Targum on the Logos 317 

Jesuits took the Sdentia Media from the Schoolmen 213 

Jewel, John, D.D., on the Holy Spirit 477 

Jewish writers on sacrifices 4IS 

Jews, influence of the, on other nations 23 

credit of the, in the Persian empire 24 

admitted the gospel history 72 

veneration of the, tor their Scriptures SO 

predictions concerning the 106 

apostasies of tlie 107 

i dispersion of (lie 107 

destruction of the, at Jerusalem 108 

will be restored 108,114 

promises to, fulfilled 114 



PAGE 

Jews, ancient, believed in the Trinity 302 

election and reprobation of the 532-552 

Joab, David's advice concerning 337 

Job, importance of the Book of 40 

trial of 96 

offered piacular sacrifices 448, 456, 471 

and his friends not reprobates 543 

conducted family worship 638 

John and Plato compared as historians 71 

object of his Gospel 323 

John the Baptist, preparatory dispensation of 416 

gave a form of prayer to his disciples 642 

baptism of, different from Christian 710-712 

baptism of, not by immersion 724 

ancient mode of representing baptism by 725 

followers of, in Mesopotamia 726 

Jonathan, Targum of, on the Logos 318 

Jones, Rev. Mr., on the form of benediction 265 

Jones, Sir William, on the Institutes of Menu 25 

on Zoroaster 28 

on prophecy 102 

Jordan, baptism in the 724-726 

Mauudrell's account of the 726 

Joseph, faith of 469 

Josephus, tradition of the deluge quoted by 26 

his enumeration of the Sacred Books 66, 78 

on the Samaritan high-priest 79 

on Jewish reverence for the Scriptures 80 

on the dispersion of the Jews 108 

on the Tetragrammaton 286 

Judah, Jacob's prophecy concerning 106 

Judas, election and apostasy of 532, 564, 565 

Judgment, future and general, founded on redemption. 249 

not inconsistent with present justification 507 

takes cognizance of man's acceptance or refusal of 

the gospel , 507 

Judicial destitution of man 127 

justice 248 

reprobation 536 

Julian, the Apostate, his testimony to the truth of the 

gospel history „ 73 

Jumudugnee on absorption into God 34 

Junius and Tremellius on the imputation of faith 493 

Jurisprudence affected by Christianity 134 

Jus Dominii of Christ s 592 

Justice, rule of 12 

of God 247, 409 

legislative 248 

judicial or distributive 24S, 409 

remunerative or pramiiative 248, 409 

vindictive or punitive 249, 409, 434 

commutative 249, 409 

impartiality of God's 249 

objections to the doctrine of God's 249 

heathen notions of God's 251 

particular and universal 409 

rectoral and sovereign 409, 415, 440 

and law, connection of 410 

obliges God to punish sin 412. 415 

Christ's- death manifests God's 433, 410 

essential rectitude 434. 440 

satisfaction to Divine 436 

pardon not claimed on the ground of 439 

consistent with substitution 440 

inconsistent with Calviniau election. 551, 553, 591, 592 

the basis of sovereignty 607 

ethical 666 

a social virtue BM 

economical 664 

distinguished from equity 672 

political 673-679 

Justification of infants and adults contrasted 899 

through the death of Christ 133, 435 

an act of mercy consistent with justice 4.",.;. 479 

not by our obedience to law 433, 4:;.">. 491, 600-609 

through faith 433, 435, 439, 4'.u-:.os 

by grace 4:!:;. I 

frees nun from punishment, not from law 435 

not by imputed righteousness -J 

claimed on the ground of faithfulness, not Justice. 439 

how connected with Christ's sufferings 439 

a judiciary term 47 s 

pardon or non-iniputation o\ Bin... IT-. 

500, 503. 

not an act of prerogative above lavr 470 

respects individuals 

not eternal 

not sanctification 4G 

Papists' view of , 

by faith not a Oalvinistic doctrine 



r58 



A.VALIIICAL I>DEX. 



Justification by faith not unfavorable to morality 493 

not by inherent righteousn -. • 499 

not irreversible 499 

not the effect or consequent of regeneration 501 

theory of Bishop Bull on 

Paul and James on . . -503 

harmony of Paul and John on 503 

declarative., approbatory, and remunerative-. 504. 507 

a presen: i::.i;z:nen: 

Zt? -.: :::: is ~:zi \Z::: :zr IZ 

in what sense at the general jndgm i : . : : 

-:-:.'. ----- :".ie::Ze -:•"■« 

not by feith and work a 508 

concomitants of 509 

- — -. - z . 

.. ninn Z .r:— Z .:.tz 1t.,:i:: -titt:* — Z \ ::r:~-^ 

from the Bible — 25 

on the authenticity of the Pentateuch . 05 

on reading the Scriptures. 81 

quotes Daniel in the ZZi _. 112 

:- Ze sjre.i.f ::" Z::5:Zz::- ZZ 

on Christ's appearance before his birth ... 

on baptism ... 353 

on the imputation of faith 492 

: — 019 

on the mode of worship in his time . 042 

on the mode of worship 684 

• on the substitution of circumcision by baptism 712 

on infant baptism — 721 

,_:•:.:. ::r iir;::i:. ::ir~5 :1; r:;: :: ::; Z:;^.., :•: 

Juvenal, his mention of Moses.... - 05 

his allusion to Christ 

ZZ: "..--• It'::t~ :':: \::ne— en: CS US 

Keill, Mr- his opinion on the deluge — 140 

Kennicott, Benjamin. DJX, on the offering of Abel 456 

Kett. Henry, on the success of the apostles 133, 134 

'-'.■ . : the kingdom of heaven . — 097 

:Z_e _ 690.097 

Kidder, Bishop, on Mark xiii. 32 329 

on the crime of murder. 060 

^:i. .r-:'ef?:r. -n :'_e I-ni— ZZZi 



;e ::' '--: 1. 



412, 



Z ... ... _: :.:.." Zn in Ze ie:o 

Z::.. .. " .. ':; Z iZ ' :n Ze i . 

on the Messianic Psalms 

Z .:..-. .-.: ._ :fn::. :n Ze :ZtZ 

:n ?Zn:Z\..-:.. 

. . - . .: . . : - i : . . . 

on the curse of the serpent 

H_ni- '. _ ■::' !-:•! i:: ::' It •":: 
-=--i l.-Z. :n i.rn.i :' ;:■. ;■-: 
Z:.- .• : : I-rvr! .: :.: r .: \ _:.•: 
Kings and other rulers, duties o 

Kirby and Spence's Entomology alluded to 

JaJr— ^n :n :"ne Z Z.i-e 

Knowing God, fundamental to religion 

Kn:~".ei~: lis: ."__'":. Zei Z:~ ~_Z:m 

:_ Z 1 5imZ.." :: :Z.: in niin 

part of the image of God 

tree of. 

——sometimes means approval 

Zn:~ZZ-r ::' ZZ f:::;mi — it— ::' :n; 

is not influence 

f:e:Z.iTi:n = :.:.::":-; 

corresponds with the things known 

how successive 

— — Z - ;: :s_ini ;5 :. :: Z;-nZen: 

x^rZ:.ni. Zt Z;i: : neZnnii Ziry. rZf—ei :■: . 

!"_::•:'. :n -Cu.. £?:■•: 

.zien: 



ZZ 

a ; 

... 

.-. 

z 

Tie i 

042 i 

Z: 

-.-229! 
„„. 146 
Z: 
211 | 

Z.. .z 
.... z;- 

373 



. z: 
.. z: 

-Z 



Zaat,lakat 

Z-ZrZ;..'. men considered as 

Labor, necessity of. oTerruled for good — 



lamb of God, why Christ is so called 

JZnirZ. Zr ±t~: : Z'Z'-'-— -=" 

Z.:_ -:•._•-. in— .rn-:^: :: :... :n Zee- .-..;: en;- 

of the Church, postulates the TrinZ. 

not invented 

i_- ".yj.r.-i _ 

of Adam 

... . Z -\. : :-::. :i: Z :n Z.e :ir. :n Z 5::::: :e 

Lao-tseu, origin of his philosoph ; — 

Lardner, Nathaniel. D-D- on Jewish and heathen testi- 



z 
~. 

661 

g 

: .: 
: - 

453 
1*4 

79 

-Z. 



on the catalogues of Script'-: — 

_...:.„. - .._:::::_ :_r ;Z. -_.:.■• -. :.;:.l:: 



' " 



Latent heat. 144 

Z::tI : : :n :'-- !■:■: Z :':.- ZZrr ::_: ZZ 

on the Zigat of St. John 

Law, Edmund. BJK, on the d priori argument _ 189 

on infinite space-. 190,210 

on Heb. xL 6 .468 

Law, foundation of . _.. 

government without, a solecism ..." 11 

revelation by .... 11 

not invented 

'. Z .-. Z ; - Z :.:---:i . _ i . :"::;• _:. 

origin.:: _ 20, 301 

proof of man's depravity 119 

mir-i! rZ::me Z :_r Z_ 

all rational beings subject to 362,406,022 

". -::.- .:.: n:.Z. . i" ■. f4a 

check to vice.. 395,406 

not to be lowered to human weakness 395, 615 

penalty of the 1 

:....- : - :' :ne 409 

publication of the _ 410, ±~ 

moral, cannot be repealed 412, Z. 

makes no provision for repentance 413 

obedience, not pardon, its end 415 

must be satisfied.- 430 

-r. .Z.-..7 i '-;■- ::. 7 ;.: . 

not cancelled in justification _ 435.623 

relation of Christ's death to the ±Z. 

Jewish, moral and political 444, 454, 6^ 65 . 

ceremonial, typical 

produces repentance - Z> 

leads to Christ 

so justification by 

moral, defined _ 622 

ceremonial, rep-eZ e: 

in part derived from patriarchal times 623 

moral, reenacted in the New Testament 623 

established by : -.623,646 

;t:Z:: Zi:en=.\:::n ::". :r_ Ze >e~ -75:in:eL: .... Z4 

-ZZi :e -:.".. ; in :'_: 

not disc t r - r r . n 

:^:Z::i:n Z Ze 

Z---' Zi:j :: -\, 

connected with doctxin e 1 

ZlZiri.n? :; :";e-Zen:e ::" Ze. 

- 

:Z.. .-. 1 Z :-- ::::r::f -.: 

of Moses, why ft has no penalty against suicide-. €59 

civil, how enacted and executed. 

ecclesiastical-. .. 691 

'-:- -L.---Z :n::\5:Z ■ ::>. ::Z.- 7 .... ^... ^Z 

God as a. how affected by the death of Christ. 4Z 

Lawrence, William, on the theory of life 197, 198 

Laws of nature 15 

generZ :-:-:-.:..-:; Z" 

Jewish, fw wnnnal ami p fJitif a1 J ahnKsKpJ ^22 

of the Church.. 

Z\-= : I-.-- -- :.e :n :le z.i:~:- ::' Z i Z . 

:n :.: ::.. "r- ::' - Z _ 191 

:_ :'- : .:.: Z i-Z 1S1 

on the procession of the Holy Gh : si . . 353 

on justification — ,T9,49T 

ongoodworks ...508 

Laying up for children .- 670 

Le Clerc on the offering of Abel. . 456 

:_ -■.::: .: :'-■-.". Z.Z ^Z 

on the Sabbath 650 

Legal substitution.. ... 411 

_--Z. -::•■- ; ::V .j 248 

Inland, John, DJ)_. on natural religion. 16 

on the opinions of Plato 20 

on the mysteries of heathenism 

on the heathen idea of creation — 156 

Lenses of the eye ... 179 

Charles, on the authenticity of the Scriptures— 66 

four rales of, on matters of fact 69 

Liberality, prompted by charity 654 

no specific rale of," in the Bible 655 

law, principle, and examples of. 655, 661 

L:Z::v --.7. : ::..' e::ZZ..:- : :..:o.Z '.- -^ ■." 

moral and natural, essential to a state of triaL 245,378 

in whatitconr- 

a natural righ: 656 

how it may be restrained -656 

may not be voluntarily surrendered — 661 

political, how secure- i 676-679 

Liberty of God, result of intelligence .. . 

compatible with indefectibility 

Z:. ..:. . .:.._:..:.--:.: r .... 7 : . M 

of. - — 197 




ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



759 



PAGE 

Life not the cause of intelligence 197 

three means of ending 235 

not opposed to annihilation 386 

when it may he sacrificed 440, 658 

atonement for the 445, 453, 455 

eternal, ground of our title to 509, 583 

guarded by law 656 

may be taken by the state 656 

when its sacrifice is self-murder 658 

Ligaments not formed by appetency 187 

Light, nature of 144, 179, 230 

Lightfoot, John, D.D., on proselyte baptisms 357 

on Gen. iv. 7 458 

on the rulers of the synagogue 683 

— — on baptism 713 

Likeness of God •. 364 

Limborch on original sin 402 

Limitation of reason 57 

not predicable of God 192 

Lindau Confession not Calvinistic 589 

Lindsey, Rev. Theophilus, on Jehovah at Sinai 276 

on the term "Angel of the Lord" 277 

on the prayer of Stephen 337 

Linnasus, his classification objected to 231 

Liturgies, object and usefulness of 641 

Liturgy of nature, Davison on the 473, 474 

Living Temple, Howe's, quoted 160, 166 

Lloyd, Rev. David, on harmony of the Scriptures 128 

Locke, John, on moral agency 9 

on reason and philosophy 15 

on the evidence of miracles 15, 52 

on the discovery of truth 17 

on the proof of a God from our own existence 160 

on our conceptions of time 616 

on personal identity 621 

on the social compact 674 

Logos, meaning of the term 291 

of Philo 303, 320 

origin of this title of Christ 316 

of the Old Testament 317, 333 

of the Targums 317 

of Plato 320 

why used by St. John 322 

a Divine person 324 

supposed use of the word by Luke and Paul 328 

Loke, the evil principle of the Edda 26 

Longinus, his quotation from Moses 65 

Long-suffering of God, design of 542 

Lord, a meaning of God 153 

a title of Christ 286 

a title of the Holy Ghost 359 

Lord's day 644 

(See Sabbath.) 

Lord's Prayer may be used by perfect Christians 615 

a model and a form 642 

Lord's Supper a monument of the truth of the gospel 

history 70 

a social rite 640 

obligatory on all 680 

administration o^ the 680, 695 

compared with baptism 729 

substitutes the passover 729 

a standing rite 730 

Romish theory of the 730 

Lutheran theory of the 731 

■ Zuinglian theory of the 732 

Socinian theory of the 732 

Reformed Churches on the 732 

Church of England on the 733 

a sacrament 733 

a covenant rite 733 

a token, pledge, sign, and seal 734 

— — why called eucharist 734 

unbelievers, Socinians, and impenitent persons 

not eligible to the 734 

— — improper persons to be excluded from tho, by 

ministers 735 

——believers and penitents welcome to the 7:55 

■ to be frequently celebrated 735 

— neglect of the, censured 7.">."> 

— — blessing attending its due reception 735 

Loss, punishment of 409 

Love of country 'consistent with depravity 406 

Love of God, nature and manifestation of tho 222, 258 

inconsistent with Calvinistic election 550 

Lovo of our neighbor, epitome of tho second table. 882, 658 

nature of the duty ('>;">:! 

originates in regeneration 

■ what it excludes 653 

what it demands 654 



Love, the fulfilling of the law 362, 

the principle of holiness 

conjugal 664, 

filial 

parental 

brotherly 

Love to Christ 

Love to Christians 260, 

Love to God, the essence of religion 258, 362, 

chief of the theopathetic affections 

complacency and gratitude 

— — mistakes concerning 

basis of 

Lowth, Robert, D.D., on the Sibylline verses 

his Isaiah quoted 28, 

on the Everlasting Father 

Lucian refers to Christ 

Ludovicus de Dieu on John i. 10 

on Rom. i. 4 

Lutheran Church on justification 

not Calvinistic 

on the Lord's Supper 

Luther, Martin, on Ps. xxxii. 1 

on the imputation of faith 

on the witness of the Spirit 

change of his views on predestination 

on Episcopacy 

on the Lord's Supper 

Luz, Rabbinical notion of 

Lycurgus, laws of. 

Lydia and family, baptism of. 718, 719, 

Lysimachus on Moses 



PAGE 

630 
368 



669 
681 
260 
6S1 
630 
629 
629 
630 
630 

27 
111 
325 

72 
297 
301 
498 
578 
731 
486 
493 
517 
578 
686 
731 



723 
65 



Maccabees (2) iii. 33 422 

Macedonia elected to the gospel 542 

Macedonius condemned by council of Constantinople.. 694 
Macknight, Jas., D.D., on pretended heathen miracles. 98, 100 

onHeb. xii. 26 282 

on Matt. iii. 17 305 

on Rom. i. 4 309 

on Heb. i. 4 309 

on Heb. xiii. 8 326 

on Mark xiii. 32 329 

Maclaine, Archibald, D.D., on Calvinism 595 

Maclaurin on the second Psalm 300 

Magee on the Socinian interpretation of " ascending 

into heaven" 270 

on the temptation of Christ 282 

on the title of Christ "God blessed for ever" 295 

on John iii. 13 326 

on the fall of man 372 

on KaraXkayTi 425 

on dinaiog 433 

on the vicarious import of Christ's sacrifice 444 

on the atonement 445, 446 

on the analogical character of Christ's sacrifice.... 454 

on the excellency of Abel's sacrifice 456, 459, 461 

Magian doctrine of two principles 17. 23, 242. 375 

Magistrates, prerogatives and duties of 673-079 

Maimonides on the word Jehovah 263 

on the Logos 319 

on the resurrection 620 

on the worship of the synagogue 684 

on proselyte baptism 713 

Majesty, supreme, ascribed to the Holy Ghost 359 

Malignity forbidden 656 

Manetho on Moses 

Manicha>anism 17. 23, 242, 375, 577 

several tenets of, correspond with Calvinism 577 

(See Dualism.) 

Manna, miracle of the 87 

a typo of Christ 462 

Manner of the sacred writers 183 

Man, scriptural character of IIS 

fall of. 119, 8«] 

relative importance of 1;;'.) 

savage state of 164 

liberty of 243 

not originally absolutely perfect 348 

social character of 383 

original state of 884 

twofold nature of 864 

866 



as a species 

cause of the creation of 

a free agent 

depravity of 

nature of bis captivity to the .lo\ il 

Han-stealing, a great prime 



r.<> 



Maut and DOyley on the Spirit's operations 513 



760 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



Mantell, Gideon, Esq., on the days of creation and "the 

beginning" 142 

Manufacturing as an employment of fallen beings 241 

Manuscripts of the Old Testament 80 

of the New Testament 82 

Marcionites denied the doctrine of the resurrection 618 

Marriage dates from the creation 372 

general obligation of 664 

— ■- — who are excused from 664 

designed for procreation and nurture of children. 664 

favorable to virtue and happiness 664 

excludes polygamy 664 

Divinely appointed 664 

prevents fornication 665 

a civil and religious contract 665 

by whom solemnized 666 

rights and duties of 666 

at the command and against the prohibition of 

parents 668 

—— elopement for 669 

not a sacrament 700 

Marsh, Bishop, on the style of the New Testament 132 

Martial, allusion of, to Christ 72 

Martinius, theology of. 589 

Martin, Rev. Robert, on the eternal Sonship 310 

Martyr, Christ's death more than that of a 418 

Martyrs, charity of. 654 

Maschil, meaning of 294 

Masters should worship with their domestics 637-639 

duties of 671-673 

Material causes 157 

Materialism, absurd and unscriptural 135, 195, 615 

not implied in the traduction of the soul 405 

Mathematics, mysteries of 138 

Matter, eternity of, held by ancient philosophers. 18, 31, 

156, 185. 
— — origin and absurdity of the doctrine of ita 

eternity 163,185 

properties of 164, 195 

— — stubbornness of ... 237, 242 

Gnostic notions of 322 

supposed evil of, a source of error as to the person 

of Christ , 346 

Maurice on the satya-age 26 

on the prevalence of human sacrifice ,,.. 38 

Maximus Tyrius. on lying 38 

Means of grace, sacraments are 701 

Mechanics, mysteries of 138 

Mechanism implies a personal agent 184 

Medullary substance » 181 

Melancthon, Philip, on the anger of God 222 

■ on justification by faith 497 

— —his renunciation of predestination 577, 578 

on the Lord's Supper 733 

Melchizedek, character of 22 

Memmingen Confession not Calvinistic 589 

Memorials, sacraments are 701 

Memra, a title of Christ 299 

of the Targums 318 

Menander on lying 38 

Menilek, a reputed son of Solomon 23 

Men, meaning of the Hebrew particle 420 

Menu, institutes of 25 

Mercy of God, a mode of his goodness „. 246 

« stated in Scripture 246 

• our experience of the 246 

— — meaning of, in Ex. xxxiii. 19 536 

— inconsistent with Calvinistic election 550 

rejoices over justice 608 

works of, on the Sabbath 652 

— — works of, rules concerning 655 

Mercy-seat a type of Christ 423 

Merits of Christ depend on his divinity 435 

the ground of justification 48S^190 

Mesopotamia, baptisms in 726 

Messiah of the Targums 319 

Messiah. See Christ. 

Metaphysical causes 157 

subterfuges of Calvinism 611 

Meteoric appearance of God, notion of 277 

Metropolitans, origin of 684 

Mexican Eve 375 

Michaelis. J. II., on miracles..... 77 

■ on the style of tlie New Testament 132 

on " Lord," with the prefix 278 

on the confession of Thomas 292 

on the Sonship of Christ 300 

on slavery among the Jews 657 

■ on Hebrew marriages 666 

Middle knowledge of God 213 



Middleton, Bishop, on the miracles of the first ages 134 

on the Greek article 291, 293, 294 

—- — on the confession of Thomas 292 

on Rom. ix. 5 295 

Milk and honey in baptism 723 

Mill's edition of the Greek Testament 82 

Mind not extinguished at death 616 

Minerals evince the wisdom of God 230 

Mining as an employment of fallen beings 241 

Ministry, designed for the salvation of men 477 

j of the gospel superseded by Calvinian election. 591, 592 

I ordination of the 681-683.690 

j orders of the 682 

| « functions of the 692 

Miracles, demonstration of 15 

j definitions of. 45,85 

* how known 47 

none wrought by human agency before Moses 48 

Hume's argument on 48 

' genuine, marks of. 48, 98 

j publicity of 77 

i of Christ 87 

of the apostles 90 

objections to proofs from 90 

pretended heathen and popish 97 

design of. 98 

when they ceased 134 

Miraculous powers in the apostolic age 527 

Miseries of sin, punitive 408 

Misery not the end of creation 234 

moral beings liable to 410 

means to prevent 410 

Missionary societies originate in charity 654 

Mixed character of the Divine government.... 119, 238, 249 

Mode of baptism 722 

(See Aspersion and Immersion.) 

Moderation, Christian 661 

Mohammedanism has no prophecies 103 

Mohammedans, immorality of 344 

Mohammed, reputed miracles of, fabulous 70 

success of 133 

Money, love of, forbidden 661 

use and abuse of 661 

Monophysites, tenet3 of the 347 

Monothelites, tenets of the 347 

Monsoon in the Red Sea 87 

Montezuma, human sacrifices of 38 

Moore's Hindoo Pantheon cited 26, 31, 34. 376 

Moral agency defined and defended 9, 127 

sense, remarks upon 43 

obligation, Erskine on 126 

destitution of man 127 

agency, not affected by prescience 213 

world, prescience of events in the 216 

attributes of God analogous to those of man 223 

government of God shows his wisdom 232 

government of God, nature and principles of. 361, 408 

beings 362. 410 

image of God 365 

1 precepts, why not the original test of fealty 380 

philosophy, how it should be taught 624-626 

philosophers, strictures on 624-628 

philosophy dependent upon Christianity 625 

sense not the source of moral obligation 626 

obligation, ground of .. 626-628 

evil. See Evil., moral. 

law. See Law. 

Morality, rule of 15, 247 

of the New Testament 129, 622 

"Moral Philosopher, the," on Jewish sacrifices 444 

Morals, heathen 35 

, Christian, the perfection of Old Testament laws. 622-624 

Christian, discussed at length 622-679 

should be studied in the Bible 624, 630, 653, 654 

reasons of 626, 629 

More, Miss Hannah, on the harmony of the Scriptures. 128 

-. on the sacred writers 129, 132 

Morgan, Thomas, L.L.D., his objection to prophecy 52 

moral character of 130 

Mosaic history, why it does not interpret the types 462 

Moses, antiquity of the books of 64 

character of 105 

inspiration of 107 

cosmogony of 141 

offers no proof of the existence of God 153 

his account of the fall defended ...• 371 

in what sense a redeemer 428 

faith of 460, 469 

his mention of sacrifices 472 

Mosheim on the polity of the primitive Church 688 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



761 



Motion proves the existence of God 165, 178 

> mechanical and voluntary 231 

Motives to obedience 410 

Calvinistic sophistry concerning 605-607 

. the mind determines concerning 606 

. not necessarily connected with volition 607 

subject to the will of God 629 

Moulds, internal, theory of 186 

Mulcts of the Jewish law 444 

Murder, prevalence of, among the heathen 36 

essence of. 365, 658-661 

punishment of 365, 656 

a violation of ethical justice 656 

Musculus on the imputation of faith 493 

Mysteries necessary 59 

*— of revelation 136 

- — <-* in the atonement 439 

heathen 699 

sacraments so called by the Greek fathers 699 

Mystics censured for neglecting the Lord's Supper 735 

Mythology, correspondence of, with Scripture 21 

* similarity of ancient Greek and modern Asiatic... 29 



Nachman, R. Moses Ben, on sacrifices 

Naked, in the Scripture style 

•. persons baptized 

NaJceh lo yinnalceh, a Hebrew name of God 

Names of God indicating plurality considered 150, 

Nara, the Hindoo 

Nares, Edward, D.D., on the preexistence of Christ 

on the Socinian version 290, 295, 296, 324, 

Nations, states, and churches judged in this world 

depravity of 

• election and reprobation of 534- 

Natural image of God 

innocence of man refuted 

i depravity proved 

Natural religion, defects of. 13, 16, 

i result of revelation 

« corruption of, among the heathen 

Natural theology, defectiveness of 167, 233, 237, 

Paley's, quoted 175, 

Nature, sins against 

— — mysteries of 138, 

. laws of 159, 175, 183, 

< of God and man similar 

< connection of, with theology 

« not the source of virtue 

i did not originate sacrifices 

Natures, two, in Christ 

Necessary existence of God 153, 161, 

knowledge of God 

»- events may be uncertain 

and contingent a contradiction 

Necessity, man not governed by 

■ of revelation 

< not certainty, the opposite of contingency.... 215, 

— not the source of moral evil 

of Christ's death 

. held by Calvinists 575, 581, 600, 

absurd distinction between it and force 

moral, contradicted by consciousness 

— — moral, excludes conscience 

Negro, degrading notion concerning the 

Neighbors, duties towards 

Neptunian and Platonian theories of the earth 

Nervous system, a proof of design in creation 

Nestorians, tenets of the 

Nestorius condemned by the council of Ephesus 

New birth, necessity of the 

(See Regeneration.) 

New Holland, aborigines of, ignorant of God 

New South Wales, aborigines of, ignorant of God 

New Testament, catalogues of the books of the 

interprets the Old 

morals of the 623- 

Newton, Bishop, on the Samaritans 

character of his writings on prophecy 106, 

< on the destruction of Babylon 

• on Ezekiel's prophecy 

Newton, Sir Isaac, on the primitive earth 

on the nature of God 

— - on infinite space 

on the mode of omnipresence 

on the title of God applied to Christ 

Nice, council of, on metropolitans 

condemned Allans 

Nicene Creed on the Sonship of Christ 309, 

on the procession of the spirit 

formed by the council of Nice 



Nichols, James, on the views of Arminius on the fall.. 385 

on imputed righteousness 482 

Noah, office of 22 

flood of 26, 141, 145, 239 

distinguished clean and unclean animals 455 

allowed to eat flesh but not blood 455 

sacrifice of 456, 471 

faith of 459, 460,469,708 

Non-elect 530, 569, 570, 585, 591 

(See Reprobation.) 

Norris, Rev. John, on the nature of faith 257 

Nose, dvon, etc., a Hebrew name of God 151 

Nothing produces nothing 160, 185 

Notser Chesed, a Hebrew name of God 151 

Nunc stans theory 202 

Nutrition proves the being of God 173 



Oaths, religious 

incompatible with atheism 

Obedience of Christ not imputed to man 438, 

not in kind and quantity what the law demands 

of us 439, 

how concerned in man's justification 

Obedience, principle and end of 

to God, rule of 

to parents 

to masters 

to civil rulers 

Objections to Christianity 

Obligation, moral, ground of 626, 

distinguished from moral goodness 

Occam's definition of person 

Occupations of man indicate a disciplinary state 

CEnomaus on oracles 

Offerings, Jewish 

(See Sacrifices.) 

Officers of the primitive Church 

Olam, meaning of 

Old Testament interpreted by the New 

Olive tree, an emblem of the Church 

Omnipotence of God 

of Christ 330, 

of the Spirit 

Omnipresence of God 

ascribed to Christ 

ascribed to the Holy Ghost 

Omniscience of God defined and considered 

pagan notions of the 

— i — moral bearing of the 

— i— ascribed to Christ 

ascribed to the Spirit 

On, fountain of 

Only-begotten, Christ the 

Ophilatria 20, 

Opinion, resistance to government by 

Opinions subject to the will of God 

Optics, principles of 

Optimism, theory of 234, 237, 599, 

Oracles, heathen, controlled by Satan 96, 

Delphic and Pythian 

Ordained to condemnation, meaning of. in Jude 4 

Ordained to eternal life, meaning of, in Acts xiii. 48.... 

why some are and some are not 

Order in nature indicates design 

in the Church 

of bishops not superior to elders 

Orders not a sacrament 

Ordination performed by apostles, evangelists, and pres- 
byters 6S1-683, 

priests did not receive 

never performed by the people 

ratified by the people 

not a sacrament 

Organic molecules, theory of 

Organization not the cause of intelligence 

sometimes perfect after death 

in Adam before he breathed 

shows beneficence 

Organs of the body, none designed to give pain 

Oriental philosophy on Cod 

Origen on ancient philosophy 

on the books of the New Testament 

on reading the Scriptures 

Hexapla of 

on the early spread ^( Christianity 

on the preexistence of Christ 

on the righteousness of faith 

his doctrines noticed 

on infant baptism 

Original righteousness, loss of 



343 

663 
481 

481 
488 
131 
629 
668 
671 
675 
135 
029 
627 
2o4 
241 
113 
443 

6S1 
332 
462 
715 
204 
334 
359 
207 
326 
359 
210 
211 
212 
32* 
359 
727 
305 
375 
676 
629 
179 
636 
loo 
112 
569 
566 
566 
167 

680 
6S2 

700 



691 
700 
1S6 
196 
106 
106 
234 
23. 1 
207 
16, 
TS 

B1 

112 

13.3, 

288 

-192 

577 

721 

103 



762 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

Original sin, a doctrine of the Church of England 386 

■ erroneous views of, examined 386 

■ distinguished from actual sin 389 

-^—infants how affected by 391 

a term introduced by Augustin 402 

i in what it consists 403 

how transmitted 405 

how antagonized by preventing grace 405 

(See Depravity.) 

Origin of evil 242, 378 

Orphic verses, allusion in the, to Moses 65 

Orrery illustrates design in creation 169 

Outram, William, D.D., De Sacrificiis of, cited. 445-449, 454 
Overseers 692 

(See Bishops.) 

Ovid, his notion of a general conflagration 27 

on the original state of man 375 

Owen, John, DJ)., on the Trinity 255 

on the procession of the Spirit 353 

Oysters and herrings show the wisdom of God 232 

Paine, Thomas, his objections to prophecy 113, 114 

character of 130 

Pain, punishment of 409, 424 

Paked avon, etc., a Hebrew name of God 151 

Palairet on KdTaXkaTTeiv 427 

Paley, Archdeacon, on miracles 49 

on heathen testimonies to Christianity 74 

on the catalogues of Scripture 78 

on the credibility of the New Testament writers.. 84 

his Evidences referred to 97 

on the coincidences of Scripture 132 

on the infinite series of beings 161 

his argument on the existence of God 167, 175 

on the personality of God 183 

on atheism 186 

on the unity of God 193 

— on the omnipotence of God 204 

on the omnipresence of God 210 

■ his Natural Theology alluded to 229 

on the difficulties of nature 233 

on the preponderance of good in the world 234 

■ on the benefits of prayer 635, 636 

his defective views of family prayer 637, 639 

on suicide 659 

on duelling 660 

on polygamy 665 

■ on civil government 674 

Pantheism absurd 183, 207 

Parable, the tabernacle a 450 

Paradise, happiness of 370 

Parseus, David, D.D., on imputed righteousness 490 

Pardouing prerogative, view of God's 412, 428, 432 

why vested in earthly governors 412 

Pardon of sin, not indicated by nature 13 

not without sacrifice 125 

not without repentance and faith 416 

ascribed to the death of Christ 416, 427 

free, though conditional 430 

not de-jure 439 

vinculum between it and the sufferings of Christ. 439 

(See Justification.) 

Parents, power of, over their children 136 

prayers of, for children 393 

— obligations of, in regard to family worship. 637-639, 669 

' i duties of 669 

benefited by the baptism of their children 722 

Parishes, origin of 684 

Parkhurst on dvvafiir- 77 

on the name of God 201 

on Col. i. 17 327 

Parsees. worshippers of fire 28 

Partiality of all Calvinistic schemes 595 

rascal. Blaise, on the fidelity of the sacred writers 130 

Passing by 584 

( See Reprobation.) 

Passion, Adam fell by 244 

in God denied 424 

Passions, in what sense ascribed to God 222 

of man irregular 406 

Passive obedience of Christ 488 

man not, under grace 609-611 

obedience not always required 676 

Passover, a memorial 67, 86 

Christ's last »... 280 

sacrificial, character of the 447 

Christ our 454 

a family rite 639 

description of the 729 



PAOK 

Pastors and teachers 682 

duties of. 682 

permanent ministers 682 

are bishops or presbyters 682 

ordinations of and by 690 

functions of 692 

trial of, charged with crime 693 

Past things, how known to God 228 

Paternal and rectoral character of God 415 

Paternity and monarchy of God 313 

Paternity, filiation and procession. See Sonship of Christ. 

Patriarchal theology 40, 383, 462 

views of depravity 397 

sacrifices 448, 638 

Patriarchs not ignorant of Christ 462 

family religion of the 638, 669 

Patripassians, followers of Sabellius 352 

Paul prayed to Christ 337 

a sufferer for others 441 

and James on justification * 503 

election of 532 

manner of his quoting Scripture 539 

personates one under the law in Rom. vii 612 

Payne, George, LL.D., on right and wrong 627 

Peace with God, how obtained 424 

Pearson, Bishop, on the nature of God 153 

on the unity of God 192 

on the omnipotence of God 206 

on the Trinity „ 255 

on the name Jehovah 263 

on the preexistence of Christ 269, 272 

on Kvpioc 286 

on Immanuel 291 

on the Sonship of Christ 314 

on Col. i. 15-17 334 

on Phil. ii. 6-8 345,346 

on the procession of the Spirit 353 

on the witness of the Spirit 517 

Pelagius on the death threatened to our first parents... 383 

on the will 578 

on infant baptism 721 

Pellicanus on the imputation of faith 493 

Penalty, death a 402 

not visited immediately on Adam 408 

of the law 408, 509 

necessary to obedience 411 

of the law, how borne by Christ 422, 480 

not borne by Christ in kind and quantity 439 

removed in justification 509 

Penance in the primitive Church 698 

a Popish sacrament 700 

Peun, Granville, Esq., on the comparative insignifi- 
cance of man 139 

on the theories of geology 141, 144, 148 

criticism of. on Gen. i. 4 144, 145 

Pentateuch, authenticity of the 66 

unity of the 69 

genuineness of the 75 

Pentecost, miracles of, well attested 77 

People never ordain ministers 690 

subject to Church laws 691 

People of Christ, who are the 572 

Perfection of unfallen man 377 

Peripatetics denied immortality 34 

Permission confounded with will by Calvin and Au- 
gustin 575, 576, 596 

God's decrees of 596-598 

Persecution, our duty under 658, 679 

Persian religion, reform in the 23 

Persians, human sacrifices among the 38 

Personality of God „. 183, 207 

Person, definition of the term 254 

unity of Christ's 348 

Personification, the Holy Ghost not a 358 

Persons in God, three 254 

in the Godhead, relation of the 312 

Persuasion of acceptance with God 511 

Peruvian traditions on creation 26 

Peter, his custody of the keys 697 

not superior to the other apostles in regard to 

binding and loosing 697 

Peter Martyr on the imputation of faith 493 

Peters on Job xxxi. 33 372 

Peter, the wild boy 156 

Petrobrussians, rise of the 721 

Phantasiasta?, tenets of the 346 

Pharaoh, reprobation of 538 

Pharisees wanting in filial piety 668 

Phenicians, human sacrifices among the 38 

Philanthropy, defective, apart from Christianity 654 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



Philaster on the canon of Scripture 79 

Philo on Jewish reverence for the Scriptures 80 

■ his good man 130 

on the Tetragrammaton 286 

on Wisdom, the Word 302 

on the Logon 303, 320 

Philosophy, little influence of 15 

contrast between, and revelation 137 

Phinelias. act of, imputed for righteousness 489 

Physical causes 157 

world created by Christ 331 

Piacular sacrifices 443 

Piedmont, creeds of the Churches of 587, 588 

Pierce, Rev. Joseph, on Ps. xlv 294 

on Heb. xiii. 8 326 

Pihahiroth 86 

Piscator, John, on imputed righteousness 481 

Placability of God 423, 476 

Planetary systems 139, 362 

Planets, laws of, prove the unity of God 193 

Plans of God, in what sense fixed 599 

Plato, believed in the eternity of matter 17 

accordance of, with the Scriptures 20 

on the origin of law 20 

on the origin of the Greek religion 30 

on the uncertainty of religion 30 

> on Divine providence 32 

on a future state 33 

on lying 38 

on Socrates 71 

on the nature of God 201, 207 

on the immutability of God 226 

on the Logos 317 

refers to the fall 375 

on suicide 658 

Platonism of Origen 578 

Platonizing fathers on the Sonship of Christ 316 

Plautus, his use of pro 420 

Pledge, sacrament a 702 

Pliny, denies immortality 35 

alludes to Moses 65 

refers to Christ 72 

letter of, to Trajan concerning the Christians. 133, 699 

Plots against government wrong 679 

Plural form of the name of God 264 

Plurality of worlds 139, 362 

of self-originate beings impossible 193 

Plutarch on the origin of evil 32 

on fornication 37 

on human sacrifices 38 

on demons 94 

on the oracle at Delphos 113 

views of, derived from the traditions of the fall ... 375 

Plutonian and other theories of the earth 144 

Pocock, Edward, D.D., on Micah v. 2 302 

Poiret on the Trinity 253 

Pollio, Virgil's 27 

Polygamy, evils of 134, 664 

opposed to the law of marriage C64 

first instance of 664 

only connived at by Moses 664 

■ discountenanced by Malachi 664 

forbidden by Christ 665 

i opposed by nature 665 

Polytheism universal 31 

evils of 194 

Polytheists, no proof that the ancient Hebrews were... 265 

Poole, Matthew, on Rom. i. 4 309 

on the Logos 328 

— on John x. 37 334 

on Isaiah liii. 3-5 421 

on Rom. xiv. 15 523 

on 2 Peter ii. 1 524 

on Heb. vi. 4-8 526 

Popish processions, why not to be allowed 662 

Porphyry on idolatry 31 

• acknowledges the truth of New Testament history. 73 ' 

i on the prophecies of Daniel 112 j 

Porteus, Bishop, on ancient slavery 36 ' 

on the cflects of Christianity 135 j 

Poms and Penia, allegory of 875 

Possible as well as actual things known to God. 210, 228, 600 

Pote tas, Church authority 894-696 

Potter, parable of the 537 

Power, civil, origin and scope of 6' 

Powers of the world to como 

Praeraiative justice 2 is 

Praise, silent 687 

vocal ami public 644 

the employ men t of heaven 644 



Prane, the life of the Budhists 18 

Prayer, not indicated by nature 12 

addressed to each person in the Godhead 268, 342 

privilege of 615 

a great benefit of the atonement 615 

nature of 631 

opposed to predestination 631 

vocal and mental 632 

enjoined in Scripture 633 

reason of. 633 

a condition, not an instrument of grace 633, 634 

dependent on grace 634 

efficacy of 635 

objections to, answered 635 

God's purposes changed by 635 

ejaculatory 636 

for others, when and why efficacious 636 

spirit of 637 

family 637 

private 637 

public 639 

forms of 641 

extempore 641-644 

implies praise and thanksgiving C44 

Precepts, moral and positive 379 

express, not always needed to indicate duty.. 637, 645 

Pre-damnation 579, 587 

Predestination, not to faith and obedience 560 

collective, end of 560 

of believers to eternal glory 560-562 

Calvinistic, defined 573 

not based on foreknowledge 573 

implies election and reprobation 574 

opposed to justice 574 

flows from the will of God 574 

not reconcilable with the demerit of man 575 

held by Churches of the Reformation 577 

not held by the primitive Church 577 

deprives man of free agency 603 

incompatible with prayer 635 

absolute and conditional 635 

(See Election.) 

Preeminence of God the Father 313 

Preexistence of Christ 268 

of souls 268 

Prejudice forbidden 654 

Preordination, not spoken of in Acts xiii. 48 566 

Preparatory process of salvation 501, 509, 594 

Prerogative to pardon, without atonement, erroneously 

attributed to God 123, 412, 428, 432 

Presbyterian confessions, Calvinistic 587, 588 

view of Church officers 

Presbyters, identical with pastors and bishops 682 

governors of the Church 682, 689 

ordained 682-690 

when and why distinguished from bishops 683 

in the Church like those of the synagogue 683 

Prescience of contingent events 212, 569, 597-603 

theories of conditional and voluntary 213 

incomprehensible to man 214 

attributed to Christ 330 

Preservation, a work of Christ 334 

Presiding elders 

Presumptions of a revelation 9 

Presumptuous sins under the law 444, 454 

Pretention 55.;. 

(See Election and approbation.) 

Price, redemption by 12 

of redemption not paid to Satan 

Price, Richard, D.D., on moral obligation 43 

Prideaux, Dean, his account of the Sybilliuo verses, <. 1 

on Zoroaster 

on Mohammed 70 

on Idumsean proselytes 

on the synagogue service 

Priest, Christ no! a metaphorical 4">l 

Priestcraft, not the origin of Bacrifloaa 

Priesthood, Jewish, a peculiar order 

the family I 

Priestley, Joseph, LL.O.) on organisation the oa 

intelligence 

on the Trinity 

on tie- tide Jehovah, given (<• Christ 

on Micah v. 2 

on Philo's Logos 

on Stephen's prayer 

on the Btyle of the apostles 

on tie- death of Christ 

on pal'. I' >n as :i Tree glfl 

on beat h 443 



764 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



PAGB 

Priests, pagan and popish, monopolized revelation 42 

Jewish, were not ordained 684 

Primalities, three essential, in God, notion of 253 

Primasius on the imputation of faith 492 

Primates and popes, origin of 6S5 

Primitive Church used liturgies 642 

worship and polity of the 6S2-6SS 

Primitive sacrifices 454 

(See Sacrifices.) 

Primogenitum mundi, the Logos , 333 

Principium applied to the Father 314 

Principle of order 175 

Principles of God's government 408 

distinguished from purposes 596, 635 

of God immutable 599. 635 

Prisoners of war 656 

Pritchard, on the negro and ape 231 

Private prayer, duty and reason of. 637 

practiced by Christ 637 

Privation of God's image 403 

Probation, no future 120 

— of man 245 

Procession of the Holy Ghost 353 

Procreation of man..." 405 

Pro. how used by the Latins 420 

Promises of God" 251 

half, fiction of 594 

and threatenings, distinguished by Calvinists from 

decrees 598 

Promise, the first 104, 464 

Propagation of revelation 42 

Propensions. particular, force of 378 

to things pleasing 402 

Propensities of man. how to be disciplined 244 

Property, when lawfully acquired 656 

— — right of, may be restrained 656 

, aggression on, forbidden 656 

a trust 661 

■ a man's right of, in his children 669 

Prophecies, number of 101 

■ none have failed 101, 114 

scope of 102 

peculiar to the Bible 102 

. particular 104. 214 

of Christ 109, 214 

contrasted with heathen oracles 112 

unfulfilled 117 

prove prescience of contingent events.... 213, 225, 569 

do not make events necessary 569 

Prophecy an external evidence of revelation 52 

compared with miracles 54 

grand scheme of 102 

objections to, answered 103 

ends of 103 

■ language of 103 

double sense of 104 

Prophets, false 95, 113 

character of the Hebrew 113 

significant actions of the 117 

faith of the 470 

Christian, extraordinary officers 681 

Propitiation, meaning of the term 422 

(See Atonement and Redemption.) 

Propitiatory, the mercy-seat 423 

Prosperity of the wicked accounted for 250 

Providence denied by polytheism 18, 32 

— ^— extent of 152, 167 

misjudged by the heathen 251 

checkered arrangements of. 476 

— — design of. 476 

not chargeable with men's sins 598 

special 615 

Provinces, Roman and ecclesiastical 685 

Psalms composed for public worship 642 

Psammis. the tomb of, described 26 

Psyche of Plato 25 

Public praver. examples and precepts for 639, 640 

branches of 639-644 

ends of 640, 644 

liturgical and extempore 641-644 

Puffendorf on the origin of law 21 

Punishment, future, reasonable 120, 408 

■ eternal 121 

proportioned to offence 387 

■ agrees with the character of God 408 

— — righteous and necessary 408, 424 

borne by Christ answers the end of penalty 442 

Punitive justice 249, 553 

Pupil of the eye 179 

Purgatory necessary if we are not sanctified in this life. 612 



FAG« 

Purposes of God agree with his prescience. 225, 228, 561, 599 

manifestation of the 565 

caused not the unbelief of the Jews 567 

not chargeable with men's sins 596-598 

dependent on foreknown contingencies 599 

may be changed „ 635 

affected by prayer 635 

Pythagoras on providence 32 

on a future state 33 

miracles attributed to 97 

Pythagorean notion of God 201 

Python, of the Greek mythology, described 26, 96 

Quakers on the sacraments 703. 735 

Qualitative righteousness 494 

Quick's Synodicon in Gallia Reformata quoted 588 

Quid recusabile, Christ's satisfaction 439 

Quinctilian, his misery under bereavement 251 

Rah. a Hebrew name of God 151 

Rahab, faith of 469 

Ralia. the Hebrew word rendered "firmament" 144 

Ramsay, the Chevalier, on the foreknowledge of God... 213 

Randolph, Bishop, his Enchiridion referred to 80 

Randolph. Thomas. D.D., on the Angel of the Lord 276 

on the law ordained by angels 284 

on the term God 289 

Rankin on God's purposes 596 

Ransom, Christ's blood a 453 

(See Atonement and Redemption.) 

Raphelius on Col. i. 16, 17 327 

on Rom. v. 6 419 

Ras Mnsa, the Cape of Moses 87 

Rational beings, powers of. 369 

Ratzah. the Hebrew word to pacify 427 

Ray's Wisdom of God in Creation alluded to 167, 229 

Readings, various, of New Testament manuscripts 82 

Reason, feebleness of 14 

proper use of. in religion 57 

human and Divine 58 

Reconciliation not conversion 426 

of God considered 424 

Rectitude, what it is and why it obliges 627 

Redemption shows the wisdom of God 232 

shows God's goodness 233 

coextensive with the fall 391 

by the death of Christ 427 

meaning of the term 428 

not mere deliverance 42S. 429 

purchased by the blood of Christ 428, 430, 453 

price of, not paid to Satan 429 

purchased, yet free 430 

shows the love of God 431, 439 

shows the justice and mercy of God 433 

shows God's righteousness." 433 

not figurative 453 

may be frustrated 524 

intended for all 525. 590 

Red Sea. miracle of crossing the 69, 86 

Reform, all, based on Christianity 625 

Reformation no atonement 123 

unaided, impossible 124 

means of 395 

Reformed Churches, liturgies of the 641 

Reformed Church of France 386, 577, 5S8 

Regeneration concomitant with justification... 435, 502. 509 

not the cause or condition of justification 501, 509 

distinct from repentance 501, 509 

preparatory process of 501, 509 

defined ". 509 

special and instant work of God 509 

called sanctification 510 

distinct from entire salification 510 

how connected with sanctification 614 

relation of, to morals 624 

not baptism 703 

Regiomontanus's fly 174 

Regulations. Church, how formed 695 

Reid, Thomas. D.D., on cause and effect 158, 159 

on matter and mind 200 

Relations of man aud duties of them 627 

Relative righteousness 494 

Reliance a part of faith 496 

Religion, natural 16 

coeval with man 17 

common origin of all 20 

Magian and Persian 23 

of the Hindoos 34 

necessary to social life 155 

external 632 



ANALYTICAL INDEX 



765 



Remission of debts, metaphorical of pardon 431 

of sins. See Justification. 

Remnant, according to election 544 

Remonstrants on original sin 385 

on justification 498 

Remunerative justice 248 

Remusat on the metaphysics of Lao-tseu. 201 

Rennel on immateriality 198, 199 

Repentance, alone, will not secure pardon 123, 412, 413 

• and faith, a sine qud non 392, 416, 430, 431, 633 

——law makes no provision for 413 

— — our legal relation not changed by 413 

nature of 413, 414, 496, 501 

— no indemnity for sin 414 

— — does not make pardon right and fit 414 

> given by Christ 414, 633 

- — not in the sinner's power 415 

— not regeneration 501, 509 

how necessary to justification 502 

a moral change 509 

why impossible to apostates 525 

— — the duty of all men 528 

not produced by mere acts of prayer 634 

Repentance of God 223 

Representations of God 221 

Reprobation, unconditional, excludes repentance and 

faith 528, 529, 581 

impeaches God's administration 530, 581 

of Pharaoh 536 

is non-election 542, 574, 579, 580 

* Calvinian, inconsistent with God's perfections. 550, 609 

" personal and eternal, caused by unbelief and diso- 
bedience 553 

as taught by Calvin 573 

involves the necessity of sinning 575, 584 

■* — not caused by sin 576 

— — pretention and damnation 579, 587 

grounded on mere will 584 

consequences of 591, 592 

Baxter's theory of 593 

Resemblances and differences in nature show the wis- 
dom of God 231 

Resistance to government, when and how lawful and 

binding 676-679 

Resistibilitj' of grace 610 

Respect due to rulers 675 

Restraints of crime and vice 395 

Rest, the Sabbath a 652 

Resurrection of Christ 88 

Resurrection of saints and sinners 520, 617 

proves the universality of the atonement 520 

of the substance of the body 617 

■ manner of, not explained 617 

germ theory of, opposed 617-621 

possibility of 618 

heresies concerning 618 

illustrations of 619 

objections to, answered 620 

——referred to the power of God 620 

its relation to retribution 620 

changes in the body no bar to 620 

Retina of the eye : 180 

Retribution, administered by God 223 

inconsistent with Calvinism 592 

resurrection necessary to 620 

Revelation, necessity of, acknowledged 11, 30 

defined 16, 44 

— given to Adam 21 

— — presumptive character of 40 

enlightens reason 62, 156 

suitable 133 

• mysteries of 136 

why not given to all 476 

(See Evidence..) 

Revelations, moral principles of all alike 226 

made to the patriarchs 459 

oral and written 476 

merciful design of 476 

Revenge regarded as a virtue by the hoathen :>7 

how attributed to God 228 

— — not the basis of atonement 424 

forbidden to man 654, 656, 661 

Reverence to God 632 

to husbands 686 

to parents 668 

to civil rulers 876 

Revolutions, civil, wh en ami how to be effected 676- 679 

French and English 878 

Rewards and punishments, future, left doubtful by 

nature 12 



Richardson, Henry, Esq., remarks of, on Zoroaster 28 

Richardson, Robert, M.D., on ancient Egypt 116 

on the Egyptian zodiacs 141 

Rich, C. J., on the ruins of Babylon 109 

Riches, use and abuse of. 661 

Richie on primitive sacrifices 454, 472 

Ridgeley, Mr., on the immutability of God 227 

on the sacraments 702 

Right and wrong, distinction between 627 

Righteousness, meaning of the term 294 

a part of the image of God 366 

how displayed in justification 433 

sometimes means veracity 433 

of God, how manifested in the justification of 

man 433, 440, 478, 487, 491 

holiness and punitive justice 434 

of Christ, not imputed 438 

faith imputed for 485-495 

three Greek terms for 494 

(See Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and Justification.) 

Rights of God cannot be surrendered 411 

of God's subjects must be secured 411 

natural 656 

Rights of man 656 

Robinson, Robert, on the ancient custom of baptizing 

naked 723 

Rochum, a Hebrew name of God 150 

Rock, Christ the 449, 462 

Roman law gave the father the power of life and death 

over his children 670 

Romans murdered men in their pastimes 36 

human sacrifices among the 38 

Rome, the Church of, alluded to in 2 Thessalonians ii... 93 

pretended miracles of. 97 

views of, on justification 500 

on the unity of the Church 688 

on Gei_eral Councils 694 

on the sacraments 700 

on the eucharist 730 

Rome, when Christianity was established at 133 

Romish casuists 626 

errors on the sacrament 700, 703, 730 

Rosenmiiller on the days of creation 142 

on chaos 143 

on Gen. i. 14 144 

on Micah v. 2 302 

on Heb. iii. 5, 6 310 

on the Logos 316, 324 

on "the Everlasting Father" 325 

on elvai fierd rwoq 327 

on fcaipolc ISiotg 328 

on aluv 332 

on John x. 37 334 

on the Messianic Psalms 339 

on Heb. i. 6 340 

on Phil. ii. 5-8 345 

on KaTcOJ^uTTtiv, KarallayTJ 427 

on Heb. ix 454 

on Matt. vii. 4 61S 

on Matt, xxiii. 33 618 

on a spiritual body 619 

on the Sabbath 650 

Rousseau, Jean Jacques, on the moral influence of 

Christianity 25, 36 

character of 130 

his eulogium on Christ 130 

Royal style not implied in the plural name of God 264 

Ruflfin on the canon of Scripture 79 

Rule of moral actions 11 

Rulers of the Church 692 

Ryan on the effects of Christianity 135 

Sabbatai Sevi, a false Christ, account of 86 

Sabbath, among all nations 26, t'«4'.) 

a memorial 67. 652 

moral character of the 628, 846 

kept by the apostles 624 

established l>y inferences 844, o4."> 

instituted at the creation 644-661 

renewed at Sinai 

never repealed 646 

law ol' the, partly positive, parti] moral ('4.') 

a seventh portion of our time 646 

Divine authority for itschan;e to the tii-t day. 646, 617 

not first kept in the wilderness .' (US 

why not expressly mentioned in patriarchal times. 648 

allusions to, in Genesis 648 

kept by the patriarchs 

not spoken of by pivlep-U in (ien. ii 



766 



ANALYTICAL INDEX 



PAGE 

Sabbath, universally binding 651 

how to observe it 651 

not a prudential institution 651 

i not to be kept with Jewish strictness 652 

— how to be enforced 652 

works of mercy on the 652 

■ business and amusements on the, forbidden 653 

spirit of the 653 j 

children should be taught to keep the 670 | 

servants should be allowed the 672 ; 

Sabellians on the Logos 324 \ 

on the Trinity 352 

Sabianism corrupted the old religion of Persia 28 j 

refuted by the Book of Job 40 

Sacraments, number of 699 

origin and meaning of the word 699 

distinguished from other rites 699 

federal acts 699,701 

~-\ — five popish not federal 700 

— ■ — Romish doctrine of 700 

Socinian opinion of. 701 

Protestant opinion of 701-703 

Sacramentum 699, 700 

Sacrifice, an act of worship due to God alone 342 

of the mass described and denounced 730, 731 

Sacrifice of Abel typical of Christ 456-475 

Sacrifice of Christ, importance of the 120, 417 

-— types of the 443 

propitiatory 443 

not analogical 454 

Sacrifices, universality of 21, 27 

human, common among the heathen 38, 134, 137 

— — human, how originated 434 

benevolent, may be made 440 

Mosaic, Divinely appointed 443 

typical of Christ 443, 448 

• expiatory and vicarious 443,454,699 , 

some refer to moral, some to political laws.... 444, 454 

bloody 445 ; 

for bodily distempers 446 

stated and general 446 

beneficial because expiatory 447 

how symbolical 447 

respected God as well as the offerer 447 

patriarchal 454, 455 

consuetudinary 454, 639 

patriarchal, of Divine origin 471 

could not have been indicated by nature 471 

— — did not represent the sinner 475 

family 638, 639, 669 

Sacrificial terms.used in the New Testament 448 

Sadducees, unbelief of the 617 

Salisbury Craigs 141 

Salmasius on diocesan episcopacy 685 

Salvation, import of the term 476 

offered to all 519 

■ of men prompted by charity 654 

Samaritan Pentateuch, description of the 66, 76 

books contained in the 79 

Samson, conduct of 137 

Samuel, not the author of the Pentateuch 76 

■ and the witch of Endor 93 

Sanchoniatho on the Phenician cosmogony 25 

Sanctification as identical with regeneration 510 

Sanctification, entire, set forth in Scripture 611 

■ time of attaining 611 

postponed til! death by Calvinists 612 

marks of. 613 

■ a present blessing 613 

— — gradual and instantaneous 614 

■ does not imply impeccability 614 

does not supersede Christ 614 

Sanctions of the law 408, 624 

Sandwich Islands, traditions of the flood in the 26 

Sarah, faith of 459 

Satan, power of, over Christ and others 93 

patron of false religions 93 

why permitted to act on the earth 96 

an adversary 380 

• the real tempter of Eve 380 

price of redemption not paid to 429 

our captivity to 430 

(See Devil.) 

Satisfaction for sin 413 

to Divine justice by the death of Christ.. 417, 436, 442 

— — meaning of 436 

leeal 438 

Baxter's theory of 590 

Saussure, M., on the insignificance of man 139 

on the veracity of the Mosaic chronology. 141, 142, 148 



PACK 

Saussure, M., on the rival sects of geology 144 

Saxon confession on predestination 588, 589 

Scape-goat, ceremony of the 446 

Sceptre of Judah, prophecy of the 106 

Schleusner on 6vvajitq 77 

his paraphrase of Acts x. 12 147 

on (jg 305 

on Rom. i. 4 308 

on John xiv. 9 310 

on Phil. ii. 6, 7 345, 346 

on IXaoTTjpLOV 423 

on kcltcl/JAttelv, Kara'Akayr] 427 

Schmidt on loa Qe£j 346 

Schoettgen on the phrase, "Spirit of holiness" 309 

Schoolmen on the Sonshipof Christ 316 

Scientia media 213, 600 

indefinite 600 

definite 600 

simplicis intelligentice 600, 601 

visionis 600, 601 

libera 601 

naturalis 601 

Scotch Church on the fall 386 

creed of the 5S7. 588 

on the sacraments 702, 729 

Scott, Rev. Dr., on prayer 644 

Scott, Rev. Thomas, on God the author of sin 242 

on the witness of the Spirit 512, 514, 518 

on Rom. xiv. 15, 1 Cor. viii. 11 524 

on 2 Pet. ii. 1 524, 525 

on Heb. vi. 4-8 526 

on Matt. xiii. 20, 21 527 

on 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14 554 

on John x. 26 564 

on John xiii. 18 564 

on John xv. 16 564 

on 2 Tim. i. 9 565 

on Acts xiii. 48 566 

Judgment of the Synod of Dort translated by 584 

unjust censure of Heylin by 5S6 

Scriptures, the, value of, apart from inspiration 24 

external evidence of their truth 44 

internal evidence of their truth 54 

not to be compared with the Koran, etc 63 

antiquity of. 63 

authenticity of 65 

nncorrupted preservation of 78 

manuscripts of 80 

versions of 80 

double sense of some parts of 104 

harmony of 128 

writers of, impartial 129 

morality of 129, 137 

collateral evidence of their truth 132 

style of 132 

defended from the charge of indelicacy 137 

how they should be studied 258, 519 

inexplicable unless they teach the Trinity 261 

their representation of man 396 

an instrument of salvation 634 

sole rule of faith and practice 694 

Seals, sacraments are 701 

Seasons, change of, how produced 230 

Second causes 176, 184 

Secret and revealed will, subterfuge of 530 

Secretions, animal, show intelligence 184 

Seed means children 714 

Seed of the woman 104, 381, 465 

Seeds prove the existence of God 172 

Self-existence of God 151, 188 

Selfishness of man 654, 655 

Self-originate, improperly applied to God 162 

Self, what constitutes 621 

Semi-Arians worship Christ 342 

views of 352 

Semi-Pelagian view of the fall 384 

view of virtue in the unregenerate 407 

Seneca on a general conflagration 27 

believed matter eternal 31 

his ideas of futurity 34 

condemned gladiatorial combats 36 

on the omniscience of God 212 

on the tendency of man to evil 395, 396 

Sensation proves the existence of God 174, 185, 187 

Sense, moral, not the ground of obligation 626 

Sententia legis. sententia judices 479 

Sentimentalism sometimes put for love to God 630 

Separate state of the soul 615-617 



ANALYTICAL INDEX 



767 



Septuagint, history of the 66, 75, 78, 

rendering of Jehovah 

——rendering of Job xv. 14 

• nse of iKao\ioq 

. use of llaorfjpiov 

— — use of IXaOKU •••• 

— — use of Kadalpo) and similar words 

■ use of et;i7iaoK.0fiai 

' use of ufiaprla 

——rendering of unrighteousness 

< rendering of Ex. ix. 16 

■ ■ rendering of Isa. vi. 10 

Sermon on the Mount, eulogy of the 

Serpent, traditions concerning the 

curse inflicted upon the 98, 105, 

1 agency of the, in the first temptation 104, 370, 

bruising of the 104, 

speaking of the 

■ sentence of the 

worship of the 

■ subtlety of the 

Servant, Christ a 

Servants should worship with their masters 637- 

■ duties of 

duties to 

Service due to masters 

Seth and Cain, descendants of 

Seven Spirits, meaning of 

Seventh-day Sabbatarians 

Severity of God puzzling to reason 

Sextus Empiricus on the gods 

Shaddai, a Hebrew name of God 

Talmudists' explanation of 

Shadow, the law a 

Shaftesbury, Earl of, on moral obligation 

' his moral character . 

on rewards and punishments 

Sharp, Granville, on the Greek article 

Shechinah above the ark 274, 

Sheep, qualities and acts of Christ's 

Sherlock, Thomas, his Trial of the Witnesses referred to. 

■ on Job xx. 4, 5 

on the first promise of a Messiah 

Sherlock, William, D.D., on the importance of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity 259, 

Shiloh, prophecy concerning 

Shimei, David's advice concerning 

■ imputation of his iniquity 

Shore, Dr. John, on the Hindoos 

Shuckford on sacrifices 

Signs and wonders, false 

Signs, sacraments are 

Simplicity in nature proves the wisdom of God 

Simpson's Key to the Prophecies quoted 

Sims on the creed of the Waldenses 

Sincerity incompatible with Calvinian election 

Singing a necessary part of worship 

Sin-oiferings 446, 

(See Sacrifices.) 

Sins of ignorance 

§in, universal tendency to 118, 

original 119, 

atonement for 

displayed by the death of Christ 124, 

not necessary 236, 

and iniquity sometimes mean punishment 

its nature 

developed gradually 

> the cause of Christ's sufferings 

for sin-offering 421, 426, 451, 458, 459, 

considered as a debt 

• no impunity to 

— — lying at the door 

' non-imputation of 

imputation of 478, 480, 488, 

■ how imputed to Christ 

penalty of, removed by pardon 

< unpardonable, the 

> Calvinism makes God the author of 575, 579, 

— — punished as a transgression of the law 

■ actual, personal, cause of condemnation 581- 

< none damned for Adam's 581- 

■ salvation from, in this life 

■ the soul, not the body, the seat of. 

evil of 

how the apostles remitted and retained 

(See Justification.) 
Skill and wisdom distinguished 



Slavery among the Greeks described 36 

effects of Christianity upon 134 

stealing men for, a crime 656 

originating in war 656 

patriarchal 656 

among the Hebrews 657 

in Christian states 657, 672 

Slaves, masters should conduct worship for them.. 637-639 

Jewish, were circumcised 657 

emancipation of 657 

Christian instruction of 657, 672 

should be allowed the Sabbath 672 

Sleep of the soul opposed 615-617 

Smith, John Pye, D.D., on the apostolic benediction.... 265 

— — on the Jewish benediction 265 

on the Greek article 293 

on Heb. i. 3 309 

on the Memra of the Targums 319, 321 

on the Logos of Philo 321 

on benedictions in the name of Christ 341 

on the terms used in regard to Christ 349 

Sobriety of the sacred writers 132 

Social worship, grounds of 638 

Society, patriarchal 473 

Socinianism a system of idolatry 256 

errors of 258 

a scheme of infidelity 361 

on repentance 413 

on the death of Christ 416 

Socinians deny foreknowledge of contingent events.... 213 

on the Trinitv 256 

on the unity of God 268 

on the preexistence of Christ 269 

on the Logos of the Targums 318 

on the Logos of St. John 324 

on Mark xiii. 32 328 

on Col. i. 15-18 333 

on praying to Christ 337 

— — old, worshipped Christ 341 

modern, do not worship Christ 343 

on Phil. ii. 5-8 344 

on the testimony of the fathers 351 

on the sufferings of Christ 351, 434, 442 

on the person of Christ 352, 434 

on the Holy Ghost 354 

on the style of the apostles 358 

on the original state of man 368 

on diabolical agency 381 

on death as the penalty of the law 383 

on the death of Christ 416, 419, 427 

on 1 Pet. ii. 24 421 

on Isa. liii. 5-7 421 

on the atonement 423 

on Horn. v. 11 425 

on a free pardon 430, 434, 439 

virtually repeal the law 434 

on satisfaction 437 

• on propitiatory sacrifices 443. 448 

on Abel's sacrifice 461 

hold the materiality and sleep of the soul 615 

Socinus on Christ's translation to heaven 269 

on the Holy Ghost 354 

on repentance as necessary to pardon 413 

on uvtl 419 

on 2 Cor. v. 21 421 

on Gal. iii. 13 422 

on l^acjiibg, l?MOT7jpiov 422. 423 

on Horn, iii 25 423 

on Eph. ii. 16 426 

on redemption 429, 430 

on the dignity of Christ as a sufferer 434. 435 

on Ezek. xviii. 20 442 

not the author of tho imputation of faith 4i>2 

Socrates, doubts of 13 

on tho origin of law 20 

character and doctrines of 71. 212 

Rousseau's contrast of. with Christ 130 

on the omniscience of God 212 

Soleness of Cod LSI 

Solomon not tho author of the Pentateuch To 

Something, existence o\\ proves the existence oi God.., 180 
Son of God, Scripture testimony concerning the..., 267] 299 

import of the title 297 

rightly understood by the Jews 809 

| why tiiis title is preferable to /.<*/<>;>• 322 

Sonshipof Christ, Divine 291 

refers not to miraculous Conception 297 

j refers not to office 

I refers not to bis resurrection 

1 refers not to adoption 800 



768 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



Sonship of Christ, refers to eternal generation 301 

i refers not to the act of incarnation 311 

• importance of the doctrine 312 

— — objections to the. answered 314 

— — speculations on the - 316 

< Sabellians deny the 352 

Sons of God, race of Seth the 473 

Son, the only distinctive name of the second person of 

the Trinity -.-. 306 

Sorrow for sin connected with repentance 496 

Soul of the world, heathen idea of 207 

Soul, or life, atonement for the „ 445 

Soul, the, individuality of . 18 

immortality of 18, 33 

— — Pythagorean notion of the transmigration of 34 

— immateriality of 195 

traduction of 405 

— — the seat of sin 613 

——sleep of, opposed 615-617 

— — immaterial 615 

received into blessedness at death..... 616 

the subject of retribution 621 

South Sea islanders, character of the 394 

Sovereigns, duties and obligations of 676-679 

■ duty of subjects in case of rival 678 

Sovereignty of God, must be maintained 412, 542 

what it is 542, 607, 629 

erroneous views of 563 

in degrees of grace and reward 564 

Calvinistic abuse of. 607 

Sovereignty, political, origin, prerogatives, duties of... 673 

Space, argument founded on infinite 190 

Spartans on adultery 37 

Spine gives proof of the existence of God 170, 181 

Spinoza, Benedict, absurd definition of a miracle by.... 46 

« antidote to his theory furnished by Hume 158 

contradictory views of, on the origin of motion... 165 

« atheism of 195 

• pantheism of 207 

Spiratiou of the Holy Ghost 353 

Spirit, God a 194 

— — properties of 195 

presence of, how made known 209 

witness of the. See Holy Spirit. 

Spirit of prayer 637 

Spirits, evil, their power 94, 100 

| disembodied 195, 615-617 

Spiritual influence 126 

body, meaning of 619 

Spirituality of God defined 220 

part of the image of God 365 

Spontaneous motion proves the existence of God 173 

predicable of mind, not matter 199 

Sprinkling in baptism 723 

(See Aspersion.) 

Stackhouse, Thomas, on miracles «. 47, 77 

on immateriality 365 

Stamen of the resurrection 619 

(See Germ Theory of Resurrection.) 

Stanhope, George, D.D., on the Son of God 309 

State of the soul after death 615-617 

Stealing forbidden 656 

Stephanas and family, baptism of 718-720 

Stephen worshipped Chri3t 337 

Stewardship of man 655 

Stewart, Dugald, on cause and effect 157, 158 

on matter and mind 200 

Stillingfleet, Edward, D.D., on ancient philosophy 31 

on moral agency 377 

« on substitution 419 

• on Isa. liii. 5-7 421 

— — on the wrath of God 424 

' on satisfaction by the death of Christ 427, 430 

- — on the worship of the primitive Church 684 

on Cranmer's opinion of bishops and priests 688 

Stock on "the Everlasting Father" 325 

Stoics on the future 27 

i on Providence 32 

« — on the evil of lying 38 

on God 201, 207 | 

on suicide 558 ; 

■ Calvinists agree with them on some points 577 

Stomach a proof of design in creation 171 

Stonehenge alluded to by Leslie 67 I 

St. Pierre's Studies of Nature, remark on 229 

Strabo, his allusion to Moses 65 

Strachey on Hindoo lying 38 

Strangers and pilgrims, the patriarchs 463 

Strasburg confession not Calvinistic 5S9 

Sturm's Inflections alluded to 167, 229 



PASS 

Style of the sacred writers ..., 132 

Sublapsarianism defined by Arminius... 580 

no better than supralapsarianism 580, 589, 595 

Submission, the head of the duties of wives 666 

the duty of subjects 675 

Submission to God a duty 629 

Subordination of the Son and Spirit 313 

Substance of God 194 

Substitute, dignity of our 434 

— — justice allows a 440 

no mere creature could be a, for us 440 

Succession in the duration of God 202 

Succession of diocesan from parochial bishops 685 

imaginary 686 

Successive events known as such to God 228 

Suetonius, his reference to Christ 65 

Suez, some locate the passage of the Red Sea at 86 

Sufferings of Christ, efficacy of the 350, 434, 467 

not what man deserved 438 

in what sense an equivalent for man's sufferings... 438 

how connected with pardon 440 

not paralleled by any other sufferings 441 

— — inexplicable apart from atonement 442 

voluntary 468 

how available to us 487 

Suicide, Greeks and Romans on 650 

apologists for 658 

reason why the Mosaic law has no penalty for 659 

is self-murder 659 

forbidden by the decalogue ; 659 

crime of 659, 660 

Suicides of duty, so called 658 

Suitableness of reA-elation 133 

Sumner, Bishop, on the adaptation of means to ends... 231 

on the heathen notion of omnipresence 207 

Sun, creation of the 144 

Sunday-schools should not teach writing 653 

Superability of grace 610 

Superstition, origin of 29 

prevalence of 394 

did not originate sacrifices 472 

Supralapsarianism held by Calvin 574, 577 

two forms of 578, 579 

horrors of 595 

Surety, Antinomian view of Christ as a ~ 438 

Swearing, an act of Divine worship 343 

Sweet-smelling savor, meaning of. 451 

Sybilline verses 27 

Sympathy of Christ 350 

prompted by charity 654 

Synagogues, Scriptures read in the 80 

antiquity of the 639, 640 

worship and government of the 640, 683 

Synods, provincial and national 687 

Syriac version of Phil. ii. 6 345 

rendering of Isa. vi. 10 568 

Syrians, human sacrifices among the 38 

Syrian traditions of the flood 26 

Tabernacle, the residence of Jehovah 274 

service of the, typical of Christ 448^453 

Tacitus alludes to the treatment of slaves 36 

alludes to Christ 65 

alludes to Moses 69 

his account of Christianity 65, 133 

Taint of man's moral nature, 119, 403 

Tanks invented by Baptists for immersion 722, 728 

Targums, origin of the 317 

Tartarus not believed in by philosophers 35 

Tasting, in Heb. vi. 4, 5, meaning of 526 

Taylor, Bishop, on the teachings of Christ 132 

on the moral attributes of God 224 

on justification 501 

Taylor, Charles, on baptism 713 

Taylor, Dr. A., on the Trinity 255 

Taylor, Dr. John, on the "Angel Of the Lord" 276 

on the original state of man 365 

on the penalty of death 387 

theory of, on justification 508 

Teachers, how distinguished from pastors 682 

Telescope compared with the eye 178 

Temperance, rule of 12 

Temple, Christ's coming to the 278 

Temple of Solomon, moral effect of the 23 

Temptation, design of permitting 96 

is never irresistible 97 

the world a scene of 126 

theory of 244 

of our first parents 377 

Tendencies of actions not the ground of obligation 627 



ANALYTICAL INDEX 



769 



PAGE 

Tendencies to evil, natural 395 

Tendency of Christianity 131 

Tenison on idolatry 31 

Terence, lax views of, on fornication 37 

on the character of the gods 39 

his use of pro 420 

Tertuilian charges heathen writers with borrowing 

from the Bible '.. 25 

on reading the Scriptures 81 

on the progress of Christianity 133 

on Christ, the Angel Jehovah 283 

on the form of baptism 358 

on the imputation of faith 492 

on infant baptism 720 

on the mode of baptism 723 

Testimony of ancient writers for the Bible ,. 65 

elements of good 83 

Tetragrammaton not pronounced by the Jews 286 

Thank-offerings 472, 635, 644 

Thanksgiving, spirit of 637 

Theft, ancient laws against 37 

common among the heathen 37 

Theist, admissions of the 11, 17 

Theocracy, Jewish, laws of the, abolished 622 

Theodotian's translation of Daniel 112 

Theopathetic affections 629 

Theophilus of Antioch on Christ's appearance to Adam. 283 

Thessalonians, First Epistle to the 77 

Theudas, pretensions and fate of. 95 

Thibet, why not elected to receive the gospel 542 

Thor, the Gothic mediator 37 



the. 



Oft 



211 
246 
248 
501 
016 
681 



Thracians, human sacrifices anions 

Thteatenings of God conditional 

Tillotson. Archbishop, on the omniscience of God. 

on the mercy of God 

on the holiness of God 

views of, on justification 

Time, absolute or real, relative or apparent - 

Timothy and Titus, evangelists 

ordained no successors in their own office 681 

ordination of 683, 691 

Titles of Christ 285 

Tomline, Bishop, on the preservation of the Scriptures. 80 

on Christ a Son over his own house 310 

on Calvinism 386 

on faith 505 

■ on Episcopacy 687 

on Anabaptists 721 

on transubstantiation 730, 731 

on Anglican Reformers' views of the Lord's Supper. 733 

Tongues, gift of. 90 

Tract societies originate in charity 654 

Traditions of a future state 13 

various, traced to Asia 20 

Traduction of the soul 405 

Trajan furnished gladiators 36 

alludes to Christ 72 

consulted oracles 101 

Transubstantiation defined 730 

leads to idolatry 731 

opposed to common sense 731 

established in the middle ages 731 

Tree of knowledge, use of the 373 

Tree of life, use of the 373 

Trent/council of, on justification 500 

on the sacraments 700 

Trespasses, various kinds and degrees of. 615 

Trespass-offerings 445 

Trial, man's life a 126, 250 

liberty essential to 245 

Trias, trinitas, when first used 265 

Tribute to be paid to government 675 

Trinitarians, reason of the name 265 

Trinity, held by Lao-tseu 202 

speculations on the 253 

folly of attempting to explain 253 

a reasonable doctrine 253, 262 

ini|M,i tance of the doctrine 255, 360 

practical effects of denying tho 259 

difficulties concerning the 262 

scriptural testimony concerning tho 263 

Trommiuson Aland Mint 264 

Trust, a part offaith 496, 505, 506, 630 

TruBl in God, elicited by bis omnipotence '-'Kl 

a duty of the first class 630 

reasons and rules of 681 

Truth, llOW known IV. L9 

Truth ol God, two branches of the 261 

Tyndal's moral character 130 

Tyre religious knowledge of 23 

49 



PAG* 

Types, leading properties of 104 

not understood when given 105 

defined 448 

of Christ 448 

inferior to antitypes 455 

why not explained by Moses 462 

understood by the ancients 462 

Tzeror Hammor on Gen. iii. 8 318 

Ubiquity of God 207 

of Christ 326 

of the Holy Ghost 359 

Ulpian on satisfaction 436 

TJnactive, God not 162 

Unbelief, guilt of 257 

not caused by God's purpose 567 

Unchangeableness of God, Scripture proof of the 225 

proved by the order of nature 226 

proved by his moral government 226 

Unction, extreme, not a sacrament 700 

in baptism, superstitious 723 

Uniformity of worship, etc., how secured 695 

Unitarians, materialists 195 

Unitarian Version of the New Testament 282 

(See "Improved Version") 

Unity of God recognized in Scripture 40 

d priori proof of the 191 

consistent with the Trinity 263, 267 

Unity of the Church 688 

Unity of the human species 21 

Universal History on the manna 87 

Universe not God 183 

Unregenerate men, virtue of, accounted for 406 

Unrighteousness sometimes means unfaithfulness 535 

Unsearchableness of God 252 

Usher, Archbishop, on the witness of the Spirit 517 

Valentia, Lord, on Suez 86 

Valerius Maxim us on the cup of Xerxes 100 

Value of Christ's sufferings 435 

Valves in blood-vessels, not formed by appetency 187 

Van Mildert, Bishop, on the reason of men... 43, 59 

on miracles '. 46, 99 

on the necessity of revelation 156 

Variations in the Gospels 85 

Variety in the works of God proves his wisdom 230 

Various readings of the New Testament 82 

Vatable's definition of "face of God" , 277 

Vaudois, creeds of the Church of the 587, 588 

Veeshnu, incarnation of 376 

Vedius Pollio, his cruelty to slaves 36 

Vegetable life 197 

Vegetables evince the wisdom of God 230 

Venomous animals, why created 234 

Veracity of God 251 

Vertebra? of the spine 182 

Vespasian's pretended miracles 97 

Vessels of honor and dishonor 537 

of mercy and wrath 539 

Veysies on the freeness of pardon... 431 

on figurative and analogical language 4,'>3, 454 

Vicarious sacrifice of Christ 120 

death of Christ 41S, 467 

sufferings compatible with justice 44vi 

sacrifices 443 

Vice, checks to 395 

varieties of 395 

tendency to 400 

Vices, conflicting 406 

Victory over death 616 

Vinculum of Christ's sufferings and the pardon of sin. 439 

Vindictive justice 249 

Vineyard, parable of the laborers in the 

Violence forbidden 8M 

Virgil, Pollio of 27 

providenco acknowledged in the Jhieid of. con- 
sidered 32 

considered the doctrine of a future state a (able... 35 

golden age of 131 

Virtue, essentials of 1'-' 

of the evangelists and apostles S3 

how confirmed '-i 1 

ditlieull to attain 896, 100 

of the unregenerate accounted for 406 

nature and ground of 8 

\ isible Church 

Pi's inertia predlcablo of matter, not mind 199 

Visitation, Divine, punitive 40S 

Vitringa on the evidence o\' prophecy 

Volition not the result of 1' 



ANALYTICAL IS 



Volitions of men forced- according to Calvinism ..; 603 ; 

Voltaire on miracles 

— — his views on prophecy _ _ 114 ; 

character of. 

on the Mosaic account of creation 144 

Voluntary sufferings of Christ 

Yciunias bent ptaciti .... 530 

sigui 530 j 

a act of -worship due to God alone 343 

Vulgate on PhiL iL 6 .. 345 

Wsehneronthe Sabbath 650 

Wakefield on Heb. i. 8 ... 

on Bom. ix. 5 

Waldenses. creeds of the 

case of the persecuted 679 

-Wall, William. D-D- on Jewish proselyte baptisms 357 

on primitiTe baptism s 

on Peter Bruis , 

on the custom of baptizing naked 72 

Warburton, Bishop, on Greek philosophy 30. 33 \ 

on the heathen mysteries 42 

on moral obligation .... 43 

on the significant actions of the Jewish proph-: - 

on patriarchal sacrif . . -463,474; 

Ward! >n Rom. is. 5 - 296 : 

Ward on Hindooism 29.31,34 ■ 

War. influence of Christianity on 134 | 

tttv.It- -_-- ;:" C ;•- 

prisoners of- — 656 

right of. - 656 

Watch, design in creation illustrated 1 7 

Watchers and Holy Ones in Dan. hr 

Water, born of. meaning of the phrase 399. 400 \ 

Waterland, Daniel, DJ).. on the persons in the Trin- 

254, - : -' - - 

on the person of Christ ... 259 ' 

on patristic Tiews of Christ the Angel - 

on the name Jehovah 

on the import of the word God — 

on fiovojevqr ■ 305 j 

on the Divine Sonship of Chris: £22, 315 

on Mark xiiL 32 _ 329 ; 

on the Divine attributes of Christ 330 

on superior and inferior worship -- 

against 4riana and spfni -ATians 553 

Watson, Bishop, on miracles 50 

on heathen oracles - 101 

on Babylon 112 

his reply to Paine 113, 114 

Dr. Isaac, Philosophical Essays of, alluded to ... 210 s 

on the original state of man ... 368; 

on the imputation of Adam's sin to his 1 

Wealth, unequal distribution of 671 

Weekly sacrifices 446 

Wernerian and other theories of the earth _ 144 

Wesley, Bev. John, on the moral teachings of Christ— 131 

on the miracles of the first ages 134 

on holyanger 223 

on the wisdom of God — 232 

ci::;r :r:-- :: e"i: 243 

on the law and wiU of God „ 361,363 ' 

on the character of Adam 36S 

on natural and spiritual lire and death « 387, 390 1 

on man's alienatior from G: 1 

on the imputation of righteousness - 4S0 

on justificatiori ... 430, 498. 502 ;, 

•:- :~ * n:.l riri-.tei-rsr. ■:•:= 4* -5 

on faith - 498,502 j 

on the witness of the Spirit 511 

on the witness of our own spirits :12,518 

■:- tire =:•■':---•>:.- z.:~ .:' 'jf: i. •'.•. ? 

on Bom. ii. 14 - 609 

West : n the Resurrection of Chri3t alluded to _ 90 

edition of the Greek Testament 

on fioporj Qeoi 

: hbishop, on the authority of Scripture- 519 [ 

on suicide 659 

Whitaker. Bev. John, on the precxistecce of Qui 

on "the King of Israel" 2 i 

on Phil.'- - 

on the u=e of Leges in Scripture... 

Whitbv. Daniel. T>D n on 1 Thess. L 5-M 

on Titus ii. IS - - 

on John L 14 

m the Divine attributes of Christ 

on Heb. i. 2 331 

on Phil. iL 5-7 - 344 



Whitby, Daniel, DJ), on the effects of the ML 

-_■;.-■.' '._--:.: . . ■ ■ -I" 

:r. : ::... ii. 24-2 ■: .'... 433 

on John vi. 53 

on justification 

on James ii. 23*. 

-on faith „_ 505 

on John xv. 16 

on John xiL 37-40 

Wickedness, meaning of the term 

Wickliffe's rendering of rr/.eiova -Oval a 

Wilkins, Bishop, on the unity of God 

— — on the omnipotence of God 

on the omniscience of God_ 

and runneth, meaning of the phrase. . 

Williams, Dr., scheme of reprobation of. 

Will of God, remarks upon the 

secret and revealed 530 

sole ground of Calvinistic predestination 

opposed the fall of man 

ground of moral obligation. . 

its use as a rule of duty 

Will of man. proves the existence of G : 

— — freedom of the 176, 530 

nature of the 

depravity of the 

depraved before actual choi : e 

obliquity of the, the cause of damnation . . 

why it is opposed to goodne; a 

freedom of the, held by the eastern Chur 

forced, according to Calvinism 

power of the. in regard to goodness, may be lost-. 603 

i:s power under grace 603, 605 

naturally incapable of good 604 

theory of the strong e : the 605 

hew affected by motives '....... 

Will-worship 

Wilson on the Divine Sonship 

on the person of Chr: : 

Wisdom and love, the heads of husbands' duties — 666 

Wisdom distinguished from skill 158 

distinguished from knowledge 

a title of Christ 

Wisdom of God, how displayed 166.211.229 

;: -ted in Scripture 229 

-e-r. in L...:~re —'• 

in the moral ends of creation 230 

in the simplicity of manifold operations 230 

in the variety of kind and form— 230 

in the variety of magnitude 

in the connection and dependence of his work b 

in the adaptation of means to ends. - - 

in redemption 

in the punishment of sir. 411 

inconsistent with Calvinistic election— 550 

— — ir. Li: ; •;: : r : - ■.. .7 

'••ibl:r_ : c .'. : ii. 21 365 

x. 1 _ 37 . " 

ii-24 

Witch of Endcr 

Witness, four characteristics of a good — 83 

Witness of our own spirit . 112, 518 

Witness of the Holy Spirit, taught in Scripture 

called assurance and persuasion of acceptance 511 

ascertains present, not future acceptance 

admits of degrees 

not of the essence of faith. 

follows justification. 511 

defined 511 

distinguished but not separated from justification. 511 

tw>:.:i "11-513 

not (he reflex act of faith - "4, 518 

r_:: . .:: 1; ~: :: 

not :Le privilege of a few believers 

essential to comfort 

itthefruitof the Spirit 515 

r_an, DD.. on the Trinity 

on the Sonship of CL: -300 



666 

ne Jehovah 

the followers of John the Baptist . 

332 

on Bom. ix. 22. . . 

Wollaston, William, on the infir.:: irgs.... 161 

on the Divine unity • 192 

Womack, Bishop, his Arcana Dogmattm quoted. 57 

Woman, condition of, among the heathen 



Wogan on the na; 
Wolfe, Joseph, on 

V>~:'.±-^ -:r. C:'.. i. 



ANALYTICAL INDEX 



771 



PASK 

Wordsworth on tlie Greek article 293 

Word, the, a title of Christ . 31G 

(See Lor/os.) 

Work, in what sense faith is a . 495 

Workmen and employers, reciprocal duties of. 671 

Works, no justification by , 491 

not confounded with faith in justification 495 

how they justify in the judgment 507, 503 

value of 508 

Works of God prove hi3 unity 193 

Works of nature 107 

World, heathen notion of the periodical destruction 

and renewal of the 34 

made for Christ 257 

Worlds, plurality of 139,362 

created by Christ S31 

World, the Spirit vouchsafed to the 407 

meaning of the term in Scripture 521-523 

Worship, not indicated by nature 12 

paid to Christ 333 

civil, distinguished from religious 338 

superior and inferior , 341 

patriarchal, Divinely ordered 471-475 

ininutiee of, not specified 475 

private 637 



Worship, family 637, 672 

public, obligations of 639 

design of public 640 

use of forms in public 641 

children should be taken to public 670 

Wrath, Christ saves from 418 

vessels of 539 

Wrath of God, existence of, denied by Socinianism 423 

defined 424 

Writing not to be taught on the Sabbath 653 

Wurtemburg Confession not Calvinistic 589 

Xenophon on the origin of law 20 

on the character and doctrines of Socrates 71, 212 

Zaleucu3, act of, illustrative of atonement. 125, 430, 434, 440 

Zanchraa on the Sonship of Christ 316 

on necessity 581 

Zeal prompted by love 654 

Zedekiah. prophecy concerning 115 

Zendavesta, account of the 27 

Zodiacs of Esneh and Dendera 141 

Zoroaster, success of... 28 

whence he obtained his views 29 

Zuiaglvua on the Lord's Supper 732 



THE END. 



Hi 










flibflbSEEQDD 



SS3H9NOD JO AMYMflH 



«*.»% 

Xc 



■ 






